Loading...
645, Construction of a new SFR with, Correspondence• BLUE GARDENS November 25, 2003 Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-377-1521 NOV 2 6 NO3 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BY SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PLAN Aaron and Suzanne Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Yolanta: Per review of the referenced landscape plan and cost estimate it is my opinion that it complies with Resolution No. 2003-01, Paragraphs Q, R and S which pertain to the landscaping requirements for this property. Please call if you have any questions. Yours truly, 803 Deep Valley Drive Rolling Hills Estates California 90274 310.377.1611 fax 310.377.1637 Blue Door Gardens 803 Deep Valley Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 T: 310.377.1611 F: 310.377.1637 Client: Aaron and Suzanne Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Home Telephone: 310-544-5129 Mobile Telephone: 310-528-7480 Project Number: DYER20 PLANT LIST WITH ESTIMATED COSTS Botanical Name Bougainvillea 'Barbara Karst' Lonicera japonica '1-laliana' Myoporum parvifolium Putah Creek' Rosmarinus officinalis Prostratus' Vinca major Common Name Barbara Karst Bougainvillea Hall's Honeysuckle Prostrate Myoporum Creeping Rosemary Periwinkle Qty. Rootball Handling Estimated Cost 300 45 20 5 15 1 Gal Flats Flats Flats Flats $4.22 $16.89 $16.89 $16.89 $16.89 Plant Material Subtotal (includes Sales Tax): Estimated Cost of Plant Material Installation: Soil Amendments and Fertilizer: Estimated Irrigation Cost (includes Material and Labor): Total: Estimated Extension $1,266.53 $759.92 $337.74 $84.44 $253.31 $2,701.92 $5,000.00 $200.00 $1,900.00 $ 9,801.92 Page 1 of 1 Print Date: 11/25/2003 • Ci1y o�� Sena Jh/i • 1.1 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com July 24, 2003. Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 645 EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL FOR A NEW RESIDENCE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 645 by the City Council. The approval will expire on SEPTEMBER 23,, 2003 unless grading and/or construction commences prior to that date. You can extend the approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. In your request indicate the reason for seeking the extension. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. The Planning Commission meets on the third Tuesday of each month. In order for your request to be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda, it must be submitted to the City a minimum of two weeks prior to the Commission's meeting. Please also be advised that we have not received the recorded copy of the Affidavit of Acceptance Form and Resolution of Approval. A letter with instructions for recordation was mailed to you in September 2002. Should you need another copy of the Resolution and the Affidavit of Acceptance Form, please call me at (310) 377-1521 and I will be glad to re -sent the appropriate information to you. Sinc4ely, anta Schwartz I {anning Director Cc: Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering c,fy ./ leo ee�nS �ue� September 24, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 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. 645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single family residence which requires grading, and Variances requests at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council approved the above case by Resolution No. 923 at their September 23, 2002 meeting. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 923, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council 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 (or hand deliver for expeditious processing) 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. 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, including the submittal of a landscaping plan and cost estimate for labor and material for implementing the plan. Please also be informed that the approval will expire in one year, unless construction commences or extension for an additional year is granted. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sinrely, anta Schwartz lanning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 923---- EXHIBIT "A" DEVELOPMENT PLAN cc: Roger North, Architect Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering ®Panted or Recyraea Pa; ra RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 — i (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT O F ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS §§ ZONING CASE NO. 645 T Recorder's Use Only SITE PLAN REVIEW X X VARIANCES X X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA (LOT 83-EF) 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. 645. SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES X X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. 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 • • RESOLUTION NO. 923 Ex.werr "A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE, AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS .DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, (Lot 83-EF), requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 4,458 square foot residence'with a 693 square foot garage and a future stable, a Variance to permit a retaining wall to encroach into the rear yard setback and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002, and July 16, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The applicants were noticed of the public hearings by a first class mail. 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' representative was in attendance at the hearings. During the course of the public hearings, the Commission requested that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed residence, and conform to the 30% residential building pad coverage guideline established by the Planning Commission. The applicants revised the proposal and reduced the residential building pad coverage to 32.9%. The applicants reduced the originally proposed house by 902 square feet and the garage by 55 square feet. At the July 16, 2002 meeting several neighbors spoke in favor of the project. Prior to the meeting, eight letters from neighbors were received in favor of the project. Section 3. On August 20, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the application by Resolution No. 2002-13. Section 4. On August 26, 2002, the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 645. The Council members were concerned about the proposed exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot and the lack of conditions for landscaping. Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the case on September 9, 2002. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and were in attendance. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. At the September 9, 2002 public hearing the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval, but requested that conditions for landscaping be added. Section 6. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. Section 17.46.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 requesting construction of the new house and garage to replace the existing residence and a future stable, the City Council 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 structures comply 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 46,040 square feet. The proposed residence (4,458 sq.ft.), garage (693 sq.ft.), service yard and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 5,697 square feet which constitutes 12.4% of the lot coverage, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. The total lot coverage including paved areas and a new driveway will be 8,971 square feet, which equals 19.5% of the lot which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is located away from the roads so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage is proposed at 32.9%, which exceeds the 30% guideline coverage established by the Planning Commission. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 46.6'%, which exceeds the 40% maximum permitted and requires a Variance. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house and future stable will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structures will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 25 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences and the street so that proposed structures will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. 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 set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. D. The development plan incorporates existing building pad and preserves a large undeveloped landscaped area of the lot that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. The applicants will remove the existing driveway and landscape it to match the existing contours of the property, therefore, further reducing the impervious surfaces on the lot. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the northeast (towards the streets) of the lot. Grading for this project will involve 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. F. 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. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed driveway of off Eastfield Drive follows natural contours and will require minimal grading. H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 645 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 13 of this resolution. Section 9. Section 17.16.120 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet, Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and Section 17.16.130 requires that the rear yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the rear property line. Except for the required rear yard setback under certain conditions, all other required setbacks must remain unobstructed by structures. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and nut applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of Resolution No. 923 -2- • • a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. The applicant is requesting permission to allow one, not to exceed 3-foot high and 60 feet long, retaining wall to be located in the rear yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and it fronts on two streets, Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Due to the double street frontage, much of the area of the lot is in the roadway easements. The remainder of the lot slopes upward from the streets with an existing building pad located at the westerly portion of the lot. 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 because due to the existing grade, irregular shape of the property and double street frontage of the property, the placement of the house and driveway require a small cut into the rear yard slope, which requires a retaining wall in the rear yard setback. 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 because the wall will be incorporated into the landscaping and will contain planters. In addition, the wall will not be visible from the public right-of-way and will be screened by existing mature trees in the rear. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity for any additional grading on the hillside. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will be located in the rear yard setback, in accordance with the development plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 645, subject to the conditions contained. in Section 13 of this resolution. Section 11. 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance for lot disturbance of 46.6%, the City Council 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. The Variance for the total disturbance is necessary because the configuration, double street frontage and topography of the lot create a difficulty in meeting this Code requirement. 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 Variance is necessary because of the existing conditions of the lot. Currently only a small portion of the lot has a slope that is suitable for construction. Additional grading and enlargement of this pad is needed to allow construction of a new residence. 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. All development will occur within required setbacks, and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 645 to permit a disturbed area of 21,440 square feet or 46.6°I , subject to the conditions specified in Section 13 of this Resolution. Section 13. The Site Plan review request to construct a new house, garage and a future stable approved in Section 8, the Variance request to construct a wall within the rear yard setback approved in Section 10, and the Variance request to exceed the 40% maximum permitted disturbance of the lot approved in Section 12 of this resolution are subject to the following conditions: Resolution No. 923 -3- • • A. The Site Plan review and the Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approvals granted are otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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 Building Code, 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. This approval shall be subject to the approval of the soils, geology and geotechnical reports and studies by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. F. 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. G. The basement shall not exceed 1,440 square feet and all requirements for the basements shall be met subject to Section 17.20.020 of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Code. H. The future barn shall conform to all of the requirements of Sections 17.16.170 and 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code and be in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002. I. Grading shall not exceed 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,697 square feet or 12.4% of the net lot area of the lot. K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 8,971 square feet or 19.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 21,440 square feet or 46.6% of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance approval. M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,247 square feet or 32.9%; coverage on the 1000 square feet future barn pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 45.0%. N. The applicant shall remove all asphalt and cement from the existing driveway and return the entire existing driveway to landscaped state to match the adjacent terrain and vegetation. O. 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. P. All graded areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping for the entire project shall be designed using native shrubs and mature trees, which at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence, and which will not obstruct views of neighboring properties. Two copies of landscaping plan for the graded/repaired area and a cost estimate for material, labor and irrigation to implement the landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permit. Resolution No. 923 -4- • • 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 permit and shall be retained with the City for- not fess than two years after landscape installation. After the two- year period, upon the request of the applicant, the retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager or his designee determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. Q. The proposed wall in the rear yard setback shall not exceed three feet in height, in conformance with the Variance approval. R. During construction, arty soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. S. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. T. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. U. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. V. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills, W. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. X. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage and run-off facilities. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Z. A drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer. Any water from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. AA. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and future stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting requirements. AB. The applicants shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. AC. A detailed drainage plan and grading plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AD. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition Resolution No. 923 -5- • • AE. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AF. The driveway access to the property shall be from Eastfield Drive. The construction of the driveway shall comply with the requirements of the Traffic Commission. AG. Until the applicant executes an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, as required by Section 17.42.070 of the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Variances and Site Plan approvals that apply shall he complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project or any future construction, which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002. ATTEST: MARILYN kERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 9§ J FRANK E. HILL, MAYOR PROEM I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 923 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on September 23, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell and 'Mayor Pro Tem Hill. NOES: None. ABSENT: mayor Lay. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Murdock. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY`CLERK Resolution No. 923 -6- • Do estx r•-• co Postage ru Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee r- (Endorsement Required) Restricted DeliveryFee CI (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees J3 nt To • r-1 Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. r. 'I' "3. City tate, ZIP+4 Osy -/zr (;/9 7j/ 1/ A\11jj iMxiiaot,pa4;0 $ I 66 e2, 30 , 75 s,5": / / rs— ro e Postmark Here -o/hrj-?4? I tlr-Ilidliv,41.0116i.,,. rnt,A,k,ii=1.,10)i 4.0,1 SEP 2 4 2002 CITY OF ROLL NG HILLS By • City. 0/ /Offtfl L/'i 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 September 11, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 645. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: As you know the City, Council approved one-year extension of the Site PlanNariance to construct a new house on your property. Please be advised that I have not received a recorded copy of the original Resolution and the recorded Affidavit of Acceptance Form. I am enclosing these documents with a letter explaining the procedure for recordation that was mailed to you a year ago. I am also enclosing a separate Resolution for your files. In addition, prior to issuance of a grading permit, there are conditions in the Resolution that must be complied with. Specifically, you must submit to the City a landscaping plan, (two sets), and cost estimate for implementation of the landscaping, (see condition "O" and "P" of the Resolution). This landscaping plan and cost estimate is separate and distinct from what the County of LA Building and Safety Department requires. Once you submit the landscaping plan (two sets), and cost estimate, our landscaping consultant will review both and advise the City if the landscaping plan meets the intent of the Resolution and if the cost estimates are reasonable. You will then need to deposit with the City a bond 15% above the cost of the landscaping. Please assure that during the design stage and construction stage your architect, engineer and contractor are aware of the conditions in the Resolution of approval. Any deviation will require modification to the plan. Thank you for your cooperation, and I look forward to working with you on this project. Si olanta Schwartz lanning Director ®` Pry dtrl ors fi.,(.yr • • opeo eenS JUL FRANK E. HILL Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor Pro Tem DR. JAMES BLACK Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember September 9, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 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: RESOLUTION NO. 944: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION (EXTENSION OF TIME) TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: At the Rolling Hills City Council meeting held Monday, September 8, 2003, the City Council adopted the enclosed resolution extending the approval of your Zoning Case No. 645 until September 23, 2004. We have enclosed a copy of the staff report and the signed resolution for your records. We wish you the best of luck with your project. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance or if you wish to discuss this further. Thank you for your cooperation and support. Sincerely, :6494 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 09/09/03dyer.l tr cc: Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North ®Pnnit^"I ort Hoc 1 RESOLUTION NO. 944 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NE\V SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastifeld Drive (Lot 83-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review and Variances for the construction of a new single family residence. Section 2. The Council considered this item at a meeting September 8, 2003, at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to complete the County of Los Angeles plan check process. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 13 of Resolution No. 923, dated September 23, 2002 to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire'within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 923 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS STH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. ATTEST: , MARILYN KERN DEPUTY CITY CLERK FRANK HILL MAYOR Resolution No. 944 -1- • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 944 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. was approved and adopted at a regular' meeting of the City Council on September 8, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and Mayor Hill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 944 - 2 - • • City ofieolling NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7258 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.:8'A Mtg. Date: 9/8/03 DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 944. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. BACKGROUND Attached is a request from Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, requesting a one-year time extension for a previously approved request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area and to encroach into the rear yard setback with a wall, in Zoning Case No. 645 that was approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 923 on September 23, 2002. The applicants state that additional time is required to process the proposal through County departments. If the request for extension is approved, the approval will expire on September 23, 2004, unless work commences on or prior to that date. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider the request and adopt Resolution No. 944 granting the extension. Aug 26 03 08:44a Fla* S. Dyer (3 6544-3369 p. 1 Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills # 1 Portuguese Bend Rolling Hills CA 90274 Dear Ms. Schwartz, Aaron & Suzanne Dycr #20 Eastfield Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 We would like to request an extension of our approval for construction of our home located at #20 Eastfield. We are currently awaiting permits from the county on our grading but have not yet received them. Sincerely, aron & Suz RESOLUTION NO. 944 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastifeld Drive (Lot 83-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review and Variances for the construction of a new single family residence. Section 2. The Council considered this item at a meeting September 8, 2003, at which, time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to complete the County of Los Angeles plan, check process. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 13 of Resolution No. 923, dated September 23, 2002 to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 923 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. FRANK HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 944 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 944 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on September 8, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 944 - 2 - s �0 �9 £'t1f o/ IO/fiIZg ..�t��L J I%'l"..':SI<.'='{;'(,.rT%tj ,1.PFN!.J/-Er 24, !S.' NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com August 27, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single family residence which requires grading, and Variances requests at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council reviewed this proposal at the August 26, 2002 meeting and took the case under jurisdiction. As stated in the August 21, 2002 letter, 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 iurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) 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 staved until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. A public hearing before the City Council will be scheduled for Monday, September 9. 2002, at which time the City Council will schedule a field visit to the site for a later date. You will receive the notice of public hearing and the staff report prior to the September 9, 2002 meeting. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /l.�.. __.. Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Roger North, Architect Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering • City 0//20 fling August 21, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 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. 645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single-family residence which requires grading and Variances at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on August 20, 2002 granting a request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single-family residence which requires grading and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot and to construct a retaining wall in the rear yard setback. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on August 26. 2002, at their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. A copy of the staff report, together with the resolution will be mailed to you on Friday, August 23, 2002. 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 (30) 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. Council. 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. The Affidavit of Acceptance, Resolution No. 2002-13, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files will be forwarded to you after the Council meeting. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Silhcerely, olanta Schwartz, Planning Director Cc: Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering Roger North, Architect ®Prirrterl on R,:i 1 • opl2 Roiling JUL July 17, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INcorPORATk:[7 J.S.NU. Rf 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. 645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single family residence which requires grading, and Variances requests at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on July 16, 2002 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new residence which requires grading, and Variances requests The Planning Commission will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your application at that subsequent meeting. The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you for your review before the next Planning Commission meeting, and the signed resolution by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk will be mailed to you after the City Council meeting. The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) 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. The Planning Commission's action taken by resolution approving the development application is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, August 20, 2002. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be placed as a report item on the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on Monday, August 26, 2002. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sinceely, 4,11/1 Yblpnta Schwartz, Planning Director cc: Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering Roger North, Architect LETTER OF CONSENT TO EXTENSION OF TIME Government Code Section 65957 Date: June 18, 2002 Application: Zoning Case No. 645 Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attn: Yolanta Schwartz Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65957, Mr. and Mrs. Dyer hereby request and consent to a ninety (90) day extension to the time periods specified in Government Code Sections 65950, 65950.1 and 65952 for the City of Rolling Hills to take action on the above referenced application. The applicants also request and consent to a continuance of this application from the June 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting to the July 16, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Signature of Applicant (1) or Applicant's Representative Printed Name of Applicant (1) or Applicant's Representative Signature of Applicant (2) or Applicant's Representative Printed Name of Applicant (2) or Applicant's Representative Received by: is )— Aug 26 03 08:44a Aaron S. Dyer (310)544-336S p.1 Aaron & Suzanne Dyer #20 Eastfield Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills # 1 Portuguese Bend Rolling dills CA 90274 Dear Ms. Schwartz, We would like to request an extension of our approval for construction of our home located at #20 Eastf eld. We are currently awaiting permits from the county on our grading but have not yet received them. Sincerely, • • Dr. Sam Wolinsky 8 Reata Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 17, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Site Plan Review: I strongly support the Dyer's proposal for a new home at #20 Eastfield. I feel the lot is well suited for a new larger home to meet the growing family's needs. A home of 4900 square feet will fit in nicely in the area and add curb appeal. The fact that the home does not need any variances and will maintain the existing topography fits the city's rural plan. I understand they exceed the pad coverage guideline, but guidelines should be adjusted as necessary. Sincerely, C Dr. Sam Wolinsky Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills Re: Dyer Property — 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Madam and Sirs; 11" 11 " [1 AIN 19 2162 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS t{v At the Planning Commission meeting on March l9th, 2002, we asked that the Planning Commission exercise its discretion and allow the pad coverage to exceed the thirty percent guideline. The Planning Commission declined to do so, and consideration of the proposed new home on our lot was continued so that we could attempt to bring the plans within the lot coverage guidelines. During the past months we have been attempting to do so, and have significantly modified our plans in that attempt. While the revised plan still does not strictly conform with that guideline, we believe that certain mitigating factors, as well as the positive aspects of that plan, weigh in favor of an exercise of the Commission's discretion that would allow this home to be built. In that regard, we ask you to consider the following: 1) In the discussions of the enactment of the site plan review that occurred in the 1990's, a comment was made that, during discussions at the time of that enactment, it was decided that those guidelines would not apply to all of the lots in the Eastfield area. We have heard conflicting accounts of those discussions. We have heard that the guidelines were not to be adhered to in the Eastfield area because the lots were of varying sizes and shapes, and were typically much smaller than the rest of the city. We have heard that, because the Eastfield lots were typically smaller, the guidelines were only intended to apply to the properties that were over two acres in size. We have heard that, for similar reasons, the guidelines were only intended to apply to lots that were over one acre in size. We have not yet been able to conclude what the actual intent was. However, the size and the shape of our lot should warrant such special application of the guidelines. Because our lot is located on the corner of Eastifield and Outrider, with the easements as they were increased, our actual net lot area is only 46040 square feet, just barely over an acre. 2) It is difficult to believe that the intent of those guidelines was to preclude a house that will cover only 12.4% percent net coverage of what is a relatively flat lot, and only 8% coverage of our gross lot. The current house already exceeds the 30 percent guideline. According to our architect, without a relaxation of that guideline, with maximum allowable grading, we will be limited to a house of appx. 2300 square feet plus the garage. 3) The current proposal asks for pad coverage of 33.4% of the lot, if the barn is eliminated from this equation we would be at 30% pad coverage. We understand that the barn needs to be calculated as part of the pad coverage, but on this gently sloping lot, the barn is actually designated to be on the large flat pad that is located below the building pad. 4) The current plan only requires the movement of 1640 cubic feet of dirt, which is very minor grading. 5) If you look at the attached study of homes, when we replace two homes built prior to 1960 with two nearer homes built after 1960, the average square footage for our area is 4510 square feet on an average lot size of 63,290 square feet, we are requesting a smaller than average house on a larger than average lot at 4,458 square feet on our 64,120 square feet lot. 6) Although this proposal requires we disturb 49.7% of our net lot, we are really only disturbing 34% of our gross lot because of the land we cannot count due to our corner lot and the easements created because of our location. We lose fully one third of our lot to easements. The disturbance of land is very minor and will be returned to lawn as it is now. 7) The corner lot location creates an unusual hardship that a non -corner lot would not have. 8) The current driveway is being moved, eliminating a traffic hazard. This change has already been approved by the Traffic Commission. The existing driveway will be removed, eliminating 1970 square feet of blacktop from the property and returning it to landscape. Our new driveway will take up 1125 square feet and be less visible from Eastfield than the current driveway. 9) The current plans allows for the large lawn area below the house to remain intact and retain the "open space" feeling. 10) The current plan keeps the house on the current pad and does not require pad movement. 11) The new house sits far back from both streets and is tucked into the hillside. 12) We do not intend to seek approval for a sports court. 13) We do not intend to seek approval for a guest house. 14) Most importantly, none of our neighbors oppose the construction of the new house. On the contrary, our neighbors have expressed that, as with the other improvements we have made on our lot, they believe that the proposed house will add to the beauty and appeal of Eastfield and to their own property values. 15) The consideration of our overall topography should also be taken into account. It is understandable that you would not want a large house on a small pad when the rest of the property is unusable and steep hillside, but our entire lot is relatively flat. We respectfully submit that this project meets all of the standards of this community, and that the excess pad coverage should not be a bar to its development. We ask that you permit us to construct the home as it is currently planned. Aar n & Suzant e # Eastfield Dri 1 e oiling Hills D:\MY DOCUMENTS\EASTFIELD PROPOSAL2.DOC p . 1 Oct 09 01 10:36a Suzanne Dyer • • Aaron & Suzanne Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-544-5129 Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 VIA FACSIMILE (3101544-3369 April 1 1, 2002 RE: Zoning Case #645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single family residence which requires grading at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Yolanta: We respectfully request that the discussion regarding our home by the Site Plan Committee be continued until the June 1 8, 2002 meeting. We need further time to prepare our plans for their review and we will be out of town at the time of the May meeting. Thank you for handling this matter for us. Sincerely, Oht/N Aaron &SuzanneSu Dyer y DANSY DtxuMY,NTS\MATtIL•wS2.TxX: • • Kathleen Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 10, 2002 RE: 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Sirs: I would like to voice my support for the construction of a. new home at #20 Eastfield. A new home on this very visible corner will add to the beauty of Eastfield. I have reviewed the Dyer's plans and feel that the home will fit in well in the neighborhood. I like the fact that the awkward driveway will be removed and the existing lawn will remain. I'think that special consideration should be given to the fact that they are a corner lot and are having difficulty obtaining a pad within the guidelines. The fact that the entire lot is usable and not a steep slope like so many of the lots in Rolling Hills should be taken into consideration. Sincerely, iC 7611" e- Kathleen Tonsich Susan Weller 3 Flying Mane Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 10, 2002 Dear Planning Commission, My husband and I have owned our home in Rolling Hills for almost 25 years and appreciate the beauty of our community. I am familiar with the Dyer's home at #20 Eastfield Drive as I drive by that property almost daily. I support them being able to construct a new home on their lot. I feel that a new home will add to the overall appeal of Rolling Hills and especially the appeal of Eastfield Drive. I do not feel that a 4900 square foot home is excessive for an acre and half lot that is very gently sloping. I appreciate them trying to maintain the natural topography of the land by not doing extensive grading. I think it is only fair to give them consideration for the fact that they are on a corner lot and unable to achieve a larger pad for the house. Sincerely, Susan Weller APR-11-2002 THU 14:26 1D:RUTH REALTY * PALOS VERDES • TEL:910 033-0630 • P:02 Tizaif a et la4 wv Wu i 5 Q with,` Toa4G 91'4 90274 `Wer cyr,2, Lowing, to, vow on, lie%alt at tho rib veil, 9asnily, (a, 20 cgostlielltt gave,. 9Lau, exciting, it wdG de to, lave, atusk new, o, �'„MORA �'„ cgasilieugbati&`E uery sine& this' /tas, moved, in,, thecf, Ra i continued to in utuer the, uiaw, am" V aU wit& chime, gy,cov a 4aS €axis Weiv proposed, residence' appoedmotely, 4, 900 la, com aUMc' with, the swygoundinry Annie& and does, not seem, too ad/u :dimit , fopMils, large, pa.el. St eG's, continue, to stee p ogee, city titer de t place, in, the, toot& to, aye, wider pteae'►,uut$ them uoot atmoaphmo. 'Wei support t tia, you tq, P,,ziliy Emv de;tiidimst t$teiw duanv!tome we, this, site, and weteamei diem and tltee v mtety, dtom& into t neigitto diuod fop manly tears, to can %Aank vow, • • April 13, 2002 To: Site Review Board Re: The property located at 20 Eastfield The Dyer's have informed us of their plans to build a new residence to accommodate their growing family. It seems that what they hope to do is compatible with several homes in close proximity. They have done a nice job in updating the existing property on the site and certainly respect the atmosphere for open space and the rural feel we all want to retain in our community. We hope you will consider their requests. Respectfully, Bev and Jim Post 3 Outrider Road APR-11-ZO0Z THU 14:ZS ID:RUTH REALTY * PALOS VERDES TEL:31O B33-0630 P:O1 • William & Deena Ruth 2 hummingbird Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 To Whom It May Concem: We are writing to offer our wholehearted support to the Dyer Family and their proposed new home. They have been very gracious In sharing their plans with myself and many of our neighbors. We do not feel by any means that a 4,900 SF home on an acre lot Is pushing the lot coverage that we all enjoy so much in our city. As you know Eastfleld has some of the smaller lots in the city and it seems that some special consideration should be given to address these properties. Let's continue to support those individuals that want to enhance our city and their quality of life, while being considerate to everyone. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further assistance. Bill & Deena Ruth Family • • May 6, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA To Whom it May Concern: I am a resident of Rolling Hills and live on Eastfield Drive. I would like to express my support for Aaron and Suzanne Dyer's request to build a new home at 20 Eastfield Drive. Our city is a special and wonderful place to live. Having lived on and off in Rolling Hills throughout my whole life, I am encouraged by the improvements residents are making to their properties. With our large lots and ample spacing between homes, I feel there is plenty of room for homeowners to build homes that match the value of the property. A home of approximately 5,000 square feet on a lot of over an acre is not out of proportion. I can think of many houses along Eastfield that are over 5,000 square feet and are not on lots any larger than the Dyer's lot. None of these homes are overbearing and all blend well with the neighborhood. The city needs to consider property values and market demands when reviewing a building plan request from a homeowner. Most who can afford to purchase property in Rolling Hills would also want a grander house than what people built 50 years ago. Keeping the building to lot ratio abnormally small adversely affects property values in our city. I am sure that building a larger house that is within reason will still preserve our privacy and the rural atmosphere of our city. Please consider the Dyer's request for their new house. Sincerely, OCIAL(.1016° Carrie Bond 54 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills (310)377-2524 • i Cilft ofierling�✓e� JODY MURDOCK Mayor B. ALLEN LAY Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, Q.D.S. Councilmember March 27, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 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: CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (DYER). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: Thank you for taking time our of your schedule to attend the Thursday, March 21 meeting of the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission, and the Special meeting of the Commission on March 27, 2002, relating to your driveway request in conjunction with your Site Plan Review application. Following the field review of your plan on March 27th, Commissioners recommended that your driveway request be approved as presented with the condition that no shrubs that would impact driver visibility as they exit your driveway be planted adjacent to the driveway apron. This action of the Traffic Commission will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for inclusion in any action by the Planning Commission regarding your Site Plan Review application. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation and support. Sincerely, Craig. R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 03/27/02dyer.ltr cc: Traffic Commission Traffic Engineer Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz Mr. Ross Bolton Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Pririted on Recycled Paper. 11, • City O/ /EOI/iflg ✓ViL>L� 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 March 21, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single family residence which requires grading at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission agreed at their regular meeting on March 19, 2002 to continue your case to the April 16, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Should you wish to submit a revised site plan, the plan together with the development calculation data must be submitted to me not later than Monday, April 8, 2002. However, if the revised plan will necessitate a request for a Variance from the provisions of the Zoning Code, that information must be related to me not later than Monday April 1, 2002, so that proper newspaper and neighbors notification may be provided for the April 16, 2002 meeting. Otherwise, the hearing may have to be continued to the May 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Should you have any questions, please call me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely UI YSlanta Schwartz lanning Director Cc: Roger North, Architect Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. £'144 0/ Rolling ...Willa INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION February 27, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer 20 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 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. 645. Request for a Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new single family residence which requires grading at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. (Lot 83-EF). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dyer: The Planning Commission will conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project onMonday, March 11, 2002 at 5: 00 P.M . The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: A. A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, roof ridges and bearing walls; B. Stake the proposed driveway and driveway approach; C. Stake the property lines and setback lines; D. Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed residence and stable. The owner and/or representative must be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. ely, to Sc w. rtz ()Y-- g Director cc: Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. • • City °MoePrtS-AIr INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityorrh@aol.com SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 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. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. Bracing should be provided where possible. 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. The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are constructed. If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department Staff at (310) 377-1521. SECTION x 4 n r i PLAN t ou Sri Printed on Recycled Paper.