Loading...
329, Remodel existing SFR & garage,, CorrespondenceD� April 5, 1993 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attention: Lola Ungar Principal Planner Re: 37 Crest Road West (Lot 241-A-3-MS) Dear Ms. Ungar: paw APR 061993 CILY 06 HILLS We are submitting our two (2) sets of building plans and plot plans as you requested for your consideration. Everything has been built to code using quality construction materials to match the existing barn. There are existing trees and mature shrubs on both sides of the structure. The roof, siding, paint and trim match the existing barn. It was not our intention to do anything contrary to building ordinances. The addition was built primarily as a new watertight entrance/storage to the existing barn. The old entrance allowed water to flow into the loft, flooding our hay and grain. Since its construction, we have had no further water problems. No gas, water or electricity was installed. The need for plans and permits never entered our mind -- our thoughts being preoccupied with the problems created by this seasons heavy rains. We wanted the new entrance to adhere to building codes, as does the rest of the barn. We apologize for our bad judgment and will do what is reasonably necessary to "legalize" this new entrance. Since hrista Hawkins 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, California 90274 cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Ms. Lata Thakar and Mr. Rafael Bernal, L.A. County Department of Public Works, Building and Safety Division • £1y `eo !f.•,.g Jh//6 March 11, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Roger Hawkins 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AT 37 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 241-A-3 MS) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins: As discussed in our telephone conversation with you on March 9, 1993, the City has been notified that an illegal addition to your barn was constructed without a building permit. You are in violation of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.04.010 and Los Angeles County Building Code Section 301.(a) (Permits Required) states that, "No person, firm or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, connect or demolish any building, structure, or automatic fire extinguishing system regulated by Chapter 38, or perform any grading or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a separate permit for each such building, structure, automatic fire -extinguishing system, or grading from the building official." You are formally requested to provide 2 sets of a plot plan and building plans within 30 days of receipt of this letter to the City of Rolling Hills and the Lomita Office of the County's Building & Safety Division or remove the illegal structure. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr... Craig _Nealis,..,City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Ms. Lata Thakar and Mr. Rafael Bernal, L.A. County Department of Public Works, Building and Safety Division Printed on Recycled Paper. • eily `i? fl•,.y JJt/f6 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman Mr. & Mrs. Roger Hawkins 4600 Rollando Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 October 14, 1986 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hawkins, This letter is to serve as official notice that at the September 22, 1986 City Council Meeting, the Council sustained your appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission, which denied your request for a Variance for encroachment into side yard setback and established front yard, as shown on the plan submitted for Zoning Case No. 329. At the City Council's October 14, 1986 Meeting, the Council approved Resolution No. 555, approving a Variance in Zoning Case No. 329, subject to the conditions set forth below: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant offer the recorded easements (Final Map §29408) for dedication to the Rolling Hills Community Association. 2. The applicant is required to remove the fences which are currently located in the easement, or apply to the Rolling Hills Community Association for a license agreement for permission to utilize a portion of the easements for placement of the fences, or relocate the fences to the Rolling Hills Community Association trail easement lines. An acceptance form, as required by Ordinance No. 207, is enclosed. Please complete the form, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward it to the County Recorder's office, Room 15, 227 N. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012, with a check in the amount of $7.00. When the Affidavit of Acceptance, duly executed and recorded, has been returned to the City, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety will be notified that a permit can be issued. Page 2 411 October 14, 1986 Please call this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, tva./.6e_ Terrence L. Belanger City Manager TLB:gb Enclosures: Council Minutes of 9-22-86/10-13-86 Resolution No. 555 Affidavit of Acceptance • ROGER E. HAWKINS• LAURENCE H. SCHNABEL* GEORGE M. LINDAHL KELLEY K. BECK JON P. KARDASSAKIS WILLIAM E. KEITEL KAREN D. UNTIEDT DANIEL E. CASAS MICHAEL M. YOUNGDAHL FRANK R. ACUNA FRANKLYN W. PERKOVICH JOSE R. BENAVIDES .A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HAWKINS, SCHNABEL & LINDAHL A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, 41ST FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 687-7777 October 8, 1986 CABLE ADDRESS "HASLIN'• TELEX 183934 TELECOPIER (213) 621-2807 WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER (213) 687-7700 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attention: City Council Terrence L. Belanger, City Manger Community Association Board of Directors Architectural Committee Planning Commission Peggy Minor, Association Manager Re: Zoning Case No. 329 37 Crest Road West Ladies and Gentlemen: My family and I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for your kind assistance in considering the referenced zoning case. Although from time to time there were differences over certain of our variance requests, it was gratifying to have those differences resolved in the very professional way they were handled. I think you will find the improvements to be a benefit to the entire community. Again, our thinks to each of you. Very,.truly yours, Roger E. Hawkins REH:osb REH\4g 131/E@REIVg0 OCT 091986 City Of Rolling Hills By (213) 375-2556 FROM L. A. 772-1555 RAYMOND L. QUIGLEY DONALD E. DAWSON ROSS N. BOLTON CONSULTING ENGINEERS SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION 304 TEJON PLACE PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 September 19, 1986 Mrs. Roger Hawkins RE: Lot 3, Tract No. 29408 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hawkin . When we surveyed e above referenced property for Mason Rose in October 19:e, we located a fence along the westerly property fence appears to be approximately one foot inside the Rose property line. Also, we partially located a fence along the easterly property line. This fence appears to be approximately four feet inside the property line. If you have any questions regarding, this matter, please contact me. Very truly yours, SOUTy BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION o Harry E.,: Tubbs HET: kk , c • ROGER E. HAWKINS* LAURENCE H. SCHNABEL* GEORGE M. LINDAHL KELLEY K. BECK JON P. KARDASSAKIS WILLIAM E. KEITEL KAREN D. UNTIEDT DANIEL E. CASAS MICHAEL M, YOUNGDAHL FRANK R. ACUNA FRANKLYN W. PERKOVICH JOSE R. BENAVIDES .A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HAWKINS, SCHNABEL & LINDAHL A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, 4)ST FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 687-7777 September 4, 1986 Members of City Council City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 329 Dear City Council Members: CABLE ADDRESS "HASLI N" TELEX 183934 TELECOPI ER (213) 621-2807 WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER (213) 687-7700 This letter is submitted to summarize the principal reasons we feel the referenced variances ought to be granted. EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES: 37 Crest Road West is an RAS-1 size parcel located in an RAS-2 zone. Its net size is nearly 10,000 square feet smaller than a minimum size RAS-2 lot. The residence is positioned off the longitudinal midline of the property at a particularly narrow spot roughly 200 feet wide. From the day the City allowed the Richard Colyear lot split which created this parcel, the residence was positioned over 200 feet back from Crest Road. The west end of the house is 44 feet from the property line. The east end of the house is 16 feet from the property line. In the rear, the lot dwindles in size with that size further diminished in usable space by a swimming pool and extensive decking (48' x 68') and large patio area located outside the living room and dining room. In addition to the limited rear yard space available for development, the lot slopes in this part of the property. These circumstances combine to landlock this house and prevent optimum use of it and the surrounding property for so long as RAS-2 building restrictions are applied to this non RAS-2 size lot creating the hardship from which we seek relief. Contrary to plans of the property prepared in connection with variances sought by a previous owner, former City Mayor Mason Rose, the house measures 2417 square feet and not 3277 square feet. Its plumbing and electrical systems are in deplorable condition; however, the structure is basically sound Members of City Council Zoning Case No. 329 September 4, 1986 Page Two and the roof nearly new. The property is bordered by mature shrubs and trees which are to remain as part of the proposed remodel. A below street level school yard is located across the street. The property is bordered on the west by a bridle trail and, beyond that, a large paved parking area for the neighbor's home. To the east, the property is bordered by a 25 foot roadway easement and beyond that a several acre corral. North of the corral is Colyear's front yard tennis court. To the rear (north) of our property is a several acre paddock with barn. We bought the property to restore and remodel the residence doing, in the process, as little violence to the existing structure as possible. To the rear of the site, we planned to construct a barn and paddocks to accommodate our several horses, establish a large vegetable garden and orchard, provide a containment area for our dogs and poultry and create a play area for our six year old son safely removed from the busy thoroughfare that is Crest Road and the likewise heavily used Colyear roadway which parallels the east boundary of the property. To anyone intent on improving the property, both the predicament its configuration posed and the solution to that predicament is clear. Expansion of the house has to be to the west and east with as much of the development forward into the spacious front yard where over two-thirds of the unused property is situated. The limited available space at the back of the property has to be preserved at all costs since any further development rearward jeopardized construction of adequate horse facilities, garden area, and the like. We had every reason to believe that these improvements would be unhesitatingly allowed. We had been told that the property was a blight in the City and that the City would work with us in the remedial steps we planned to take. We were shown plans that had been approved in October 1981 for Rose. Parenthetically, these plans depicted 20 foot and not 35 foot side yard setback standards. Patterning our own scaled down version of what Rose had successfully proposed, we submitted our variance requests to the Planning Commission confident it would routinely reaffirm its earlier approval. Like Rose, we asked for approval to construct a master bedroom on the west end of the house which would go no further than 20 feet from the property line. To the east, we proposed adding a garage that would extend no further into the side yard than did the existing residence, i.e., 16 feet from the property line. The approved Rose proposal, to the contrary, involved building a garage and paved parking and paved recreational area within 12 feet of the ti • • Members of City Council Zoning Case No. 329 September 4, 1986 Page Three property line and even violated the 50 foot front yard setback restrictions. Our proposal, on the other hand, remained 120 feet back from Crest Road. We asked for less than five foot encroachments into the front yard for portions of the existing main residence -- the object being to increase some of the room size and renew the front of the house. Permission to expand the living room and dining room rearward into an area already developed as patio space was also sought. We did, however, eliminate the cathedral ceilings that Rose's proposal contained due to our understanding that the City was displeased with that part of Rose's plan. Lastly, we asked for a ten foot variance to build a four stall barn, hay storage and tack room facility. Our plan carefully preserved the feeling of open space. It did not substantially intrude into the setbacks imposed on RAS-1 size lots but did involve some encroachment if the more onerous RAS-2 setbacks were rigidly applied. The same Planning Commission that approved the Rose proposal denied each and every variance we requested. Demolishing the house or substantial portions of it was suggested by one member "since it is in bad shape anyway." Another Commissioner theorized that we could attach the garage 22 feet further to the west and construct the master bedroom at the back of the house. Aside from the fact that our architect tells us such a design would constitute an architectural monstrosity, it would also violate the County building codes by eliminating half the windows in the house. It would require cutting the foundation in half to allow for running plumbing lines to the front yard septic tank, involve demolition of the near new roof, and would entail extensive grading and excavation by building on the one area of the lot that is significantly sloped. It would also result in having the barn positioned within a few feet of the master bedroom. Although my wife and I are diehard horse people, there is absolutely no way we intend to sleep with our equines. It would also involve either eliminating a much needed garage or building it within inches of the front door. Relocation of the existing driveway would then become an absolute necessity. In short, the suggestions of the Commissioners ignore the legitimate development problems any owner faces with this property. PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT: The Planning Commission has, in denying our variance requests, effectively evicted us from our property. When you combine the long narrow configuration of the property and the placement of the house at its near narrowest point with RAS-2 Members of City Council Zoning Case No. 329 September 4, 1986 Page Four restrictions imposed on this RAS-1 size lot, and allow no variances of the types requested, we have a very real hardship and are precluded from the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right. In October of 1981, the Planning Commission clearly found exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in connection with the application for variance by Rose. Other homeowners in the City are granted variances in similar hardship situations. Fairness demands we be accorded similar treatment. GRANTING VARIANCE NOT MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL: Neither the public welfare nor the property nor improvements in the vicinity will be adversely affected by the proposed additions. To the contrary, the proposal would eliminate existing health and safety hazards. The garage would provide a much needed noise buffer from the Colyear roadway. A vintage, if neglected, Rolling Hills residence would have been restored and remodeled in a way which retains its rural look. The sense of open space in all directions would be preserved. No one's view would be impaired. No one's access to property or to bridle trails or to easements would be compromised in the slightest degree. As developed, the majority of the residence would remain anywhere from 150-200 feet from Crest. The house would be well under 6000 square feet in size. A professional quality horse facility would be constructed where none now exists. The property would be beautifully landscaped, all to the benefit of neighboring residents and the community in general. There is no legitimate basis for denying the requested variances and very good reasons, based on the hardship we face, to have our sensible solution approved. Very truly yours, Roger and Christa Hawkins cc: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager REH\9i • oty ` a tens wee TERRENCE L. BELANGER CITY MANAGER Mr. & Mrs. Roger Hawkins 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hawkins: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.2554 August 26, 1986 j Please find enclosed a copy of the Findings and Report of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills for Zoning Case No. 329. Sincerely, l Terrence L. :-Langer City Manager TLB:mz 3 • • August 20, 1986 City Council City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Subject: Zoning Case No. 329 Members of City Council: Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code, this is to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission denying the Request for Variance for residence additions on Lot 241-A3-MS located at 37 Crest Road West on the grounds that there was error and/or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and/ or the decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by the evidence in this matter. This appeal is based upon, among other things, the following grounds. First, there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the in- tended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject property is unlike any other property in the same vicinity and zone. The City created this lot in 1970 when it approved a subdivision requested by Richard Colyear. In doing so, the City effectively created a non -conforming RAS-1 size lot and residence among surrounding RAS-2 properties. Specifically, the lot is 7000 square feet smaller than the minimum size for an RAS-2 property. Prior to our purchase of the property, we examined the City's file on the location and determined that a plan virtually identical to our proposal had been submitted by its former owner, Mason Rose, in October of 1980. The plans showed 20-foot side yard and 50-foot front yard setbacks. In spite of the fact that the additions proposed by then City Mayor Rose encroached 10-feet into the easement on the east side and into the 50-foot front yard setback, his plan was, in these variance particulars, approved. Subsequent to our purchase, we learned that this RAS-1 size lot is burdened with RAS-2 side yard setback restrictions and that the front of the house cannot be expanded forward of its existing walls without first securing a variance. In effect, this already narrow lot (particularly where the house • • City Council August 20, 1986 Page 2 is situated) is reduced in width for development purposes by 70-feet. The house is not centered on the longitudinal midline of the property and, therefore, as it stands already violates the 35-foot side yard setback requirements imposed on much larger RAS-2 zoned properties that surround it. Moreover, even though the house is positioned roughly 200-feet away from Crest Road, it cannot be developed into this 200-foot front yard without a variance. In the proverbial nutshell, this house cannot be added onto in any direction without a variance because of the City's imposition of RAS-2 setback restrictions on this actual RAS-1 property and because each and every variance we requested has been capriciously denied by the Planning Commission -- even though our request is a radically scaled down version of a plan previously approved. Second, 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 blanket denial of our requested variances prohibits the development of this property in any meaningful way and precludes us from utilizing the property in a way which meets our needs. So far as we can determine, all the other property owners in the same vicinity and zone have been allowed to develop and enjoy their properties even when variances have obviously been sought and granted. The inability to develop this distressed property in a way we understood it could be permissibly developed before we bought it, makes the property virtually useless for our purposes and creates a significant financial hardship, as well. Third, the granting of such variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which it is located. Absolutely none of the proposed additions will inter- fere with anyone's views, access to properties, access to trails, or access to other easements or roads. To the contrary, the additions will dramatically enhance and add value to the surrounding properties and will convert what is now a City eyesore into residence which does credit to the City. Although for cost considerations it is imperative that we be allowed to maintain substantially all of the existing structure as the nucleaus of the house (particularly the nearly • • City Council August 20, 1986 Page 3 new roof), the structure now has health and safety hazards that would be corrected contemporaneous with the remodel. Moreover, construction of the proposed garage will serve as a much needed noise buffer from the heavily used roadway easement allowed by the City to Richard Colyear whenit approved his lot split. Had the land now dedicated to that 25-foot roadway remained with the 37 Crest Road property, the hardships we now unexpectedly face would be minimized. Deadening the noise at the property site is needed due to the property's relative proximity to not only Richard Colyear's thoroughfare but Crest and Crenshaw as well. Furthermore, the presence of both mature trees and hedge row plantings on both our property and Richard Colyer's property make the proposed garage addition virtually undetectible from Richard Colyer's roadway. Indeed, none of the proposed additions are visible to any other residence. In conclusion,the denial of our variance requests has and continues to work a severe economic and emotional hardship on our family. From our perspective, it is a classic Catch 22 situation with potentially devastating consquences unless our appeal from this variance denial is granted. Respectfully submitted, Hawkins /01 Christa M. Hawkins • City ot Rolling Mr. and Mrs. Roger Hawkins 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING MILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 August 20, 1986 Subject: Zoning Case No. 329 e This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Request for Variance for residence additions encroaching into both side yards and established front yard on Lot 241-A3-MS located at 37 Crest Road West was denied by the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 1986, with findings that the proposed additions do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that there are not ex- ceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class use of in the same vicinity or zone Section 17.32.030, and that sufficient hardship has been demonstrated for granting of a Variance. This notice shall serve as a copy of the decision of the Planning Commission. A formal report of the Commission's action as required by Section 17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is contained in the minutes which will be available to you after approval by the Planning Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by the applicant, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will be reviewing the action of the Planning Commission on Monday, August 25, 1986, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code to determine whether the action of the Planning Commission should be appealed by the Council. Sincerely, Terrence L. Belang City Manager TLB:mz August 20, 1986 City Council City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Subject: Zoning Case No. 329 Members of City Council: Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code, this is to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission denying the Request for Variance for residence additions on Lot 241-A3-MS located at 37 Crest Road West on the grounds that there was error and/or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and/ or the decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by the evidence in this matter. This appeal is based upon, among other things, the following grounds. First, there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the in- tended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject property is unlike any other property in the same vicinity and zone. The City created this lot in 1970 when it approved a subdivision requested by Richard Colyear. In doing so, the City effectively created a non -conforming RAS-1 size lot and residence among surrounding RAS-2 properties. Specifically, the lot is 7000 square feet smaller than the minimum size for an RAS-2 property. Prior to our purchase of the property, we examined the City's file on the location and determined that a plan virtually identical to our proposal had been submitted by its former owner, Mason Rose, in October of 1980. The plans showed 20-foot side yard and 50-foot front yard setbacks. In spite of the fact that the additions proposed by then City Mayor Rose encroached 10-feet into the easement on the east side and into the 50-foot front yard setback, his plan was, in these variance particulars, approved. Subsequent to our purchase, we learned that this RAS-1 size lot is burdened with RAS-2 side yard setback restrictions and that the front of the house cannot be expanded forward of its existing walls without first securing a variance. In effect, this already narrow lot (particularly where the house :yl City Council August 20, 1986 Page 2 is situated) is reduced in width for development purposes by 70-feet. The house is not centered on the longitudinal midline of the property and, therefore, as it stands already violates the 35-foot side yard setback requirements imposed on much larger RAS-2 zoned properties that surround it. Moreover, even though the house is positioned roughly 200-feet away from Crest Road, it cannot be developed into this 200-foot front yard without a variance. In the proverbial nutshell, this house cannot be added onto in any direction without a variance because of the City's imposition of RAS-2 setback restrictions on this actual RAS-1 property and because each and every variance we requested has been capriciously denied by the Planning Commission -- even though our request is a radically scaled down version of a plan previously approved. Second, 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 blanket denial of our requested variances prohibits the development of this property in any meaningful way and precludes us from utilizing the property in a way which meets our needs. So far as we can determine, all the other property owners in the same vicinity and zone have been allowed to develop and enjoy their properties even when variances have obviously been sought and granted. The inability to develop this distressed property in a way we understood it could be permissibly developed before we bought it, makes the property virtually useless for our purposes and creates a significant financial hardship, as well. Third, the granting of such variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which it is located. Absolutely none of the proposed additions will inter- fere with anyone's views, access to properties, access to trails, or access to other easements or roads. To the contrary, the additions will dramatically enhance and add value to the surrounding properties and will convert what is now a City eyesore into residence which does credit to the City. Although for cost considerations it is imperative that we be allowed to maintain substantially all of the existing structure as the nucleaus of the house (particularly the nearly City Council August 20, 1986 Page 3 new roof), the structure now has health and safety hazards that would be corrected contemporaneous with the remodel. Moreover, construction of the proposed garage will serve as a much needed noise buffer from the heavily used roadway easement allowed by the City to Richard Colyear when it approved his lot split. Had the land now dedicated to that 25-foot roadway remained with the 37 Crest Road property, the hardships we now unexpectedly face would be minimized. Deadening the noise at the property site is needed due to the property's relative proximity to not only Richard Colyear's thoroughfare but Crest and Crenshaw as well. Furthermore, the presence of both mature trees and hedge row plantings on both our property and Richard Colyer's property make the proposed garage addition virtually undetectible from Richard Colyer's roadway. Indeed, none of the proposed additions are visible to any other residence. In conclusion,. the denial of our variance requests has and continues to work a severe economic and emotional hardship on our family. From our perspective, it is a classic Catch 22 situation with potentially devastating consquences unless our appeal from this variance denial is granted. Respectfully submitted, . Hawkins Christa M. Hawkins ROGER E. HAWKINS* LAURENCE H. SCHNABEL* GEORGE M. LINDAHL KELLEY K. BECK JON P. KARDASSAKIS WILLIAM E. KEITEL KAREN D. UNTIEDT DANIEL E. CASAS MICHAEL M. YOUNGDAHL FRANK R. ACUNA FRANKLYN W. PERKOVICH JOSE R. BENAVIDES "A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HAWKINS, SCHNABEL & LINDAHL A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS IBM TOWER - 415T FLOOR 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 687-7777 June 27, 1986 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attn: Terrence L. Belanger, Planning Commission Architectural Committee Peggy Minor, Association Ladies and Gentlemen: City Manager Manager JUN 3 0 1986 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS $y...............«..,.r.. CABLE ADDRESS "HASLIN" TELEX 183934 TELECOPIER (213) 621-2807 WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER (213) 687-7700 My family has just purchased 37 Crest Road West -- a distressed property located three lots inside the Crenshaw Gate. The purpose of this letter is to solicit your help in moving quickly to remedy a host of unhealthy and dangerous conditions which we have discovered with the residence. The property was purchased by us in an "as is" condition. We have learned to our dismay that the "as is" condition in- cludes exposed electrical wiring throughout the house; exposed sewage drain pipes; exposed studs and rafters; a single working bathroom which can be flushed a maximum of twice daily before backing up the septic tank; a heater which does not vent to the outside thus permitting the emission of carbon monoxide fumes into the living quarters; numerous inoperative appliances; broken windows, plaster and doors; wildlife domiciled in the attic; termite infestation; etc. Moreover, the water main leading to the house is so badly rusted that it has sprung leaks causing portions of the front yard to be partly flooded. We have applied for a variance to allow a beautiful remodel of the existing residence and construction of a barn for the loves of our life -- our horses. We find ourselves in a race against the continuing deterioration of the property which threatens not only our safety but the safety of our new City of Rolling Hills June 27, 1986 Page 2 neighbors and community, not to mention a rainy season that will be upon us a few short months away. We submitted our request for a variance involving minor deviations into setbackrequirements on June 26. We understand from the helpful Association staff that our request will be considered by the Architectural Committee and Planning Commis- sion. We understand the Planning Commission customarily holds a general public hearing at which the proposed variance is discussed. Thereafter, the Planning Commission members schedule a field trip to the premises for an on -site inspection. Absent resident objection and with the approval of the Architectural Committee and Planning Commission, the improvements can get underway subject to obtaining requisite permits. Because of the highly unusual circumstances, we urgently request the Planning Commission make an exception to its normal procedure by scheduling its field trip in advance of the general public meeting. Thus, if there are no objections to the requested variance, we can institute remedial steps without unnecessary delay. Your anticipated consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Roger E. Hawkins REH:reh