301, Addition of a bedroom and bath, CorrespondenceC,•4 / R0ft �e�
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Mayor
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Mayor pro tem
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
GODFREY PERNELL
Councilman
GORDANA SWANSON
Councilwoman
Duk Lee
7 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Lee:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
October 11, 1984
Subject: Zoning case No. 301
This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section
17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance
for encroachment of a residential addition into the side yard
on Lot 33-SK located at 7 Caballeros Road was approved by the
Rolling Hills Planning Commission at a regular meeting on
August 28, 1984. A formal report of the Planning Commission,
as equired by Section 17.32.086.of the Municipal Code, is contained
within the minutes of the proceedings before the Commission..
The City Council of.the City of Rolling Hills reviewed the action
of the Planning Commission on Monday, September 11, 1984, pursuant
to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Since no action was
taken by the Council regarding the Variance, the decision of the
Planning Commission has been ratified by the City Council, The
project,, as outlined on a plan submitted for Zoning Case No. 301,
is approved.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincerely yours,
Ron Molendyk
City Manager
RM:mlg
City Oi IO/ftP&iilif4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377.1521
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Mayor
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Mayor pro tem
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
GODFREY PERNELL
Councilman
GORDANA SWANSON
Councilwoman
September 6, 1984
Duk Lee
7 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: Zoning Case No. 301
Dear Ms. Lee:
This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section
17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance for
encroachement of a residential addition into the side yard on Lot 33SK
located at 7 Caballeros Road was approved by the Rolling Hills Plan=
ning Commission on Tuesday, August 28, 1984.
This notice shall serve as a copy of the decision of. the Planning
Commission. A formal report of the Planning Commission's action as
required by Section 17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is contained in
the minutes of the proceedings before the Commission.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will be reviewing
the action of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 11, 1984
at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall pursuant to
Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills
to determine whether the action -of the Planning Commission should be
appealed by the Council.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincergly,
Q
Ron Mol\endyk
City Manager
• RM/jc
July 17,.1984
The PlanningCommission
City of. Rolling Hilts.
He: Variance Zoning Case 301
Gentlemen:
Recently we had extensive, landscaping done and at that
time we were informed by the City of Rolling Hills
that there were definite rules governing the easements.
We complied with those regulations even though we much
preferred to do something else.
It is our feeling that, in all fairness,. these regula-
tions should apply to all residents. Therefore request
is made that. the Side Yard Encroachment at 7 Caballeros
Road be declined.
sincerely
-mile[° ,t�z c�!1:/ 6.! 6�'7?.L
Juanita and Ken Crane
10 Caballeros Road.
•
June 11, 1984
J. L. Washburn
#5 Caballeros Rd.
Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274
Rolling Hills Planning Comission
City of Rolling Hills
Gentlemen:
Regarding side yard variance zoing case #301; #7 C'aballeros
Rd., I would like to express my reasons for not granting this
variance.
1. The existing 13' variance should never have been
granted in the first place unless all of us could
have the same benefits given us; i.e. a larger
front yard and better use of our property. In
this particular case the variance was not only
given but the owners have planted and land8anped
their 10' of easement and are using same for
their driveway entrance. They then use my graded
easemQnt as an access road to their lower and
back piece of property. The encroachment and
use of the easement also creates a problem during
the rains as the water from the trees and landscaping
runs into my 10' easement creating erosion in this
area.
2. In view of an existing non -conforming confittion
that should never have been granted, it is felt that
this is more than enough variances on this piece
of property. Therefore, as can be seen in the
foregoing, I am definitely against any variances
granted.
Thank you for considering my feelings in this matter.
J. L. Washburn
' #5 Caballeros Rd. '