Loading...
411, A bedroom addition encroaches , Correspondence��G HI(�f:*9 City ofieo Qlihy JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 June 11, 1990 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton 77 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: Zoning Case No. 411; Request for Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to construct an addition to the existing residence, located at 77 Eastfi'eld Drive, Rolling Hills, Lot 15-EF Dear Dr. and Mrs. Fenton: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on May 14, 1990, voted to ratify the Planning Commission's approval of the above referenced planning/zoning case application. Pursuant to Section 17.32.087, Ordinance No. 207, an Affidavit of Acceptance form must be executed before the above approval becomes effective. A copy of the Resolution of Approval, specifying conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission, is enclosed for your information. Once you have reviewed the Resolution of Approval, please complete the enclosed Affidavit of Acceptance form, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the Affidavit to the Office of the County Recorder, Room 15, 227 North Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012, with a check in the amount of $7.00. When the Affidavit of Acceptance has been returned to the City, duly executed and recorded, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety will be notified that a permit can be issued. Please feel free to call Mr. Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at 377-1521, if you have any questions. Very truly, ,69 Betty Vt6lkert Deputy City Clerk /bv Encls. City ol Rolling Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton 77 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 April 19, 1990 RE: ZONING CASE NO. 411; Request for Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to construct an addition to the existing residence located at 77 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, Lot 15-EF Dear Dr. and Mrs. Fenton: Pursuant to Section 17.32.090 (enclosed) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, this letter shall serve as official notification that the above -stated Zoning Case application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of April 18, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request for a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on May 14, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed, pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (copies enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution No. 598, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at 377-1521. Sincerely, Betty Vijlkert Deputy City Clerk Encls. (3) (213) 377-1521 •111 ,Ro[tin9 c i1''t, Community of eRanc4o (l/ d No. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ROLLING HILLS Mr. Allan Roberts, Chairman The City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission Dear Chairman Roberts: Iodation CALIFORNIA March 12, 1990 r 111/ (OP IRO Ltab !Hat. 47 Re: RHCA Easement Areas When Rolling Hills was subdivided, the subdivider reserved from the land so subdivided certain strips of land as road and peri- meter easements for the use and benefit of all Members of the Association. 1) Roads, streets or bridle trails, parkways and park areas. 2) Poles, wires and conduits for the transmission of electricity for lighting, heating, power, telephone and other purposes and for the necessary attachments in connection therewith. 3) Public and private sewers, storm water drains, land drains and pipes, water system, and water, heating and gas mains or pipes. 4) Any other method of conducting or performing any public or quasi -public utility furnished beneath the surface of the ground. The original subdivider gave the Association the jurisdiction and control of all easements and subsequently conveyed to the Association all of his right, title and/or interest in and to the easements. Consistent with easement reservations, the Rolling Hills Community Association adopted Building Regulations that • • Page 2 March 12, 1990 RHCA Easement Areas require stable structures to have vehicular access with grades not to exceed 25%. Specifically, in the initial submittal of the Fenton's Stable/ Garage/Tack Room preliminary plans, the Architectural Committee approved vehicular access to the structure, using the Association easement in accordance with uses described in the Deed Restrictions; namely, "Roads, streets or bridle trails". All approval conditions and construction complied with by the Fentons. We hope the above clarification relating by the Community Association is helpful. of the project have been to easements controlled Very truly yours, Pegy`R. Minor Manager do CC: Terry Belanger, City Manager GLENN R. WATSON ROBERT O. BEVERLY HARRY L GERSHON DOUQLAS W. ARGUE MARK L LAMKEN ARNOLD SIMON LEE T. PATERSON RICHARD H. DINEL ERWIN E. ADLER DAROLD D. PIEPER FRED A. FENSTER THOMAS A. FREIBERG. JR. ALLEN E. RENNETT STEVEN L DORSEY WILUAM L BTRAUS2 MARY L WALKER ROBERT M. OOLDFRIED ANTHONY B. DREWRY MITCHELL E. ABBOT' TIMOTHY L NEUFELD ROBERT F. DE METER GREQORY W. BTEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE DONALD STERN MICHAEL JENKINB WILLIAM B. RUDELL DAVID L COHEN TERESA R. TRACY OUINN M. BARROW CAROL W. LYNCH TERRY A. TRUMBULL COLEMAN J. WALSH. JR. JOHN A. BELCHER JEFFREY A. RABIN MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE OREQORY M. KUNERT ITT WEIBLE DANIEL P. TORRES THOMAS M. JUMBO MICHELE BEAL BAQNERIB ROBERT O. BOPER ROBERT C. CECCON BETH A. BHENFELD PAMELA A. ALBERS ARIEL PIERRE CALONNE KEVIN OENNIB ROBIN D. HARRIS EFRAT M. COQAN LAURENCE S. WIENER DAVID P. WARE CYNTHIA M. WALKER CHRISM HOQIN BTEVEN R. ORR DEBORAH R. HAKMAN BCOTT K BHINTANI ANDREA J. QREENBERQ MICHAEL Q. COLANTUONO JACK B. BHOLKOFF DAVID A. BUCHEN BTILDEN KIM B.HERI D. UNQAR SUSAN L MONTGOMERY DARYL T. TESHIMA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90071-1489 (213) 4326-8484 TELECOPIER: (213) SS!-OOTB February 20, 1990 Chairman Roberts and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zoning Case Number 411 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton 77 Eastfield Drive MCHARD RICFIARDS (1910-1988) SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE SEVENTH FLOOR ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER SAN FRANCfSCO, CAUFORNIA .4111-3813 (416) 868-8484 TELECOPIER: (416) 886-6722 OUR FILE NUMBER R6980-001 E.W FEB 201990 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By fid0 ¢/ / Dear Chairman Roberts and Members of the Planning Commission: At the last Planning Commission meeting on January 16, 1990, you requested that our Office review the application by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton for a side yard setback variance to allow for a bedroom addition to the residence located at 77 Eastfield Drive. One of the issues raised is whether the grant of such a variance would have the effect of causing other complicating consequences regarding vehicular access to a rear yard garage/tack room. The existing and required side yard setback is 35 feet. (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.16.070.) The Community Association has an easement 15 feet in width measured from the property south line into the lot. The applicant is requesting to encroach 10 feet into the south side yard, leaving 25 feet between the residence and the lot line, and 10 feet from the residence to the easement line. An accessory garage/tack room was approved for construction as a permitted use in the rear yard prior to the adoption of the City's Site Plan Review Ordinance (Ordinance Number 221, November 28, 1988.) Vehicular access to the rear yard garage/tack room is currently obtained through the south side yard over a dirt pathway which the applicant placed within the Community Association's easement. The proposed encroachment would be constructed on this same side of the residence. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO. City of Rolling Hills February 20, 1990 Page 2 Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.28.022 does not permit improvements in a required side yard except for fences, driveways and parking areas. The applicant is not proposing to convert the current vehicular access into a paved driveway,. which if requested, would require Association approval and a possible variance to the 20% side yard coverage requirement of Section 17.28.022. Staff has informed me that the applicant has agreed to remove certain other improvements from the side yard such as concrete steps and railroad ties used as landscape barriers. The issue presented is whether a portion of the area displaced by the proposed residential addition could be used for vehicular access to the rear yard. If the variance is granted, then vehicular access to the garage/tack room would occur in whole or in part over the easement, and the Community Association would have to consent to such a use. The applicant's attorney has indicated that it is impossible to construct the vehicular access closer to the house due to the slope of the property and resulting grading problems, and that this would be the case whether the variance is approved or not. This conclusion has to my knowledge not yet been confirmed or accepted by the City's Staff. If the Commission is disposed to approve the variance at this time, our Office recommends that the Commission condition its approval on the applicant obtaining the Association's express written consent to the use of particular portions of its easement for vehicular access. With regard to the issue of multiple driveways from the property intersecting the Association's improved roadways, Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.16.115 and 17.16.012(J) permit only one driveway as access to a maintained roadway unless a conditional use permit for two driveways is obtained with findings that: a driveway from the property is not located within 50 feet of a roadway intersection; the property has a frontage of not less than 250 feet and; there is a minimum separation of 100 feet between the multiple driveways. If the applicant is requesting a third driveway curb cut, a variance must first be obtained to the maximum number of two driveways that may be conditionally allowed under Section 17.16.115. If such variance is granted, then the required finding for the conditional use permit would then have to be made to allow a third driveway curb cut. Without such a variance and conditional use permit, the applicant would have to maintain vehicular access for the accessory structure in such a way that it merges with the existing paved driveway prior to intersecting with Eastfield Drive. 1 a RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHOO City of Rolling Hills February 20, 1990 Page 3 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. KGE:lsj cc: Mr. Terrence L. Belanger Mr. Ray Hamada 1680102 Very truly yours, Kevin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney • C,•ry ol Rolling • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 TO: DR. ROBERT FENTON 77 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90274 FROM: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUBJECT: The- -p-1 cr- nor PROPERTY OWNER: -Applicant: Address: (a) (b) XX (c) (d) (e) XX CONCRETE STEPS IN SIDE YARD DR. ROBERT FENTON 77 EASTFIELD DRIVE Complies with City Zoning requirements Needs Variance ( SECTION 17.16.070(A) SIDE YARDS) ) Contact City for application and submittal requirements. Needs Conditional Use Permit Contact City for application and submittal requirements. Needs Site Plan Review Contact City for application and submittal requirements. Other (see below) APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION 17.08.260: 2. SECTION 17,08.290: 3. SECTION 17.16.070(A) YARD (SEE ATTACHMENT) YARD, SIDE (SEE ATTACHMENT). SIDE YARDS (SEE ATTACHMENT) I AM ADDRESSING THIS NOTICE TO YOU AS A FOLLOW-UP TO PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS IN REGARD TO THE STEP STRUCTURE WITHIN THE SIDE YARD. J Ra Hamada ENCLS: (2) Plincipal Planner ku FEBRUARY 16, 1990 • 174113.240--17.08.290 17.08.240 Use. "Use" means the purpose for which land or a building is arranged, designed, or intended, or for which either is or may be occupied or maintained. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.26, 1960). 17.08.250 Variance. "Variance" means a variance from the terms of this title as will not be contrary to its inten- tion or to the public interest, safety, health, and welfare, where due to exceptional or extraordinary conditions or characteristics of such property or its location or surround- ings, a literal enforcement of this title would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. (Ord. 188 (part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.27, 1960). 17.08.260 Yard. "Yard" means an open space on a lot, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except as otherwise provided in this title. "Unoccupied and un- obstructed" means, as used in this title, the absence of any manmade features, including, but not limited to, swimming pools and other structures. "Unoccupied and unobstructed" also includes the absence of walls and/or fences, whether manmade or not. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.28, 1960). 17.08.270 Yard, front. "Front yard" means a yard extending across the full width of the lot between the side lot lines and measured between the front roadway easement line and either the nearest line of the main building or the nearest line of any enclosed or covered porch attached thereto. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.29, 1960). 17.08.280 Yard, rear.. "Rear yard" means a yard extending across the full width of the lot between the side lot lines and measured between the rear lot line and the nearest rear line of the main building or the nearest line of any enclosed or covered porch. Where a rear yard abuts a street, it shall meet front yard requirements of this title. Where an easement traverses the rear portion of any lot and the owner of the servient tenement does not have. the right to use the surface for buildings, then the rear lot line shall be considered to be the rear line of that portion of the lot to which the easement does not apply. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.30, 1960). 17.08.290 Yard, side. "Side yard" means a yard ex- tending from the front yard to the rear yard between the side easement line where an easement exists and the nearest line of the main building or of any accessory building attached thereto. Where there is no existing easement along the side of the lot then the side yard shall be measured from the side lot line. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.31, 1960). 197 (Rolling Hills 8/83) 1' • 17 10.070--17.16.120 17.16.070 Side yards. A. Every lot or parcel in the RA-S-2 zone shall have side yards of not less than thirty-five feet. In the event the perimeter easements of the parcel are twenty-five feet in width or greater, the side yard setback shall be ten feet from the interior boundary line of the ease- ment, and in no event less than thirty-five feet from the property line. B. Every lot or parcel in the RA-S-1 zone shall have side yards of not less than twenty feet. In the event the perimeter easements of the parcel are ten feet in width, the side yard setback shall be ten feet from the interior boundary line of the easement, and in no event less than twenty feet from the property line. (Ord. 204 §1, 1983; Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 183, 1980: Ord. 33 §3.07, 1960). 17.16.080 Rear yard. Every lot or parcel in the RA-S zone shall have a rear yard of not less than fifty feet. Accessory buildings may be constructed within the rear yard provided they conform to other requirements of this title. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §3.08, 1960). 17.16.090 Lot width. Every lot or parcel shall have a width which conforms to Article IV of Ordinance No. 161, (subdivision ordinance). (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 52 §2, 1963: Ord. 33 §3.09, 1960). 17.16.100 Lot area exceptions. Any lot or parcel of record on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title which has less than the area required by Section 17.16.020 shall be deemed to have the required area. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §3.10, 1960). 17.16.110 Existing structures. Any structure legally existing in the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title shall be deemed conforming for the purposes of Sections 17.16.030 through 17.16.090. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §3.11, 1960). 17.16.115 Driveways, limited access. Each residential structure, as described in Section 17.08.130 of this title, is required to be developed with one driveway as access to a maintained roadway. Additional vehicular access ways to roadways are prohibited, except as provided in Section 17.16.012 K of this chapter. (Ord. 211 §2, 1986). 17.16.120 Additional development standards. Premises in RA-S zone shall be subject to all of the following additional development standards: A. Every single-family dwelling and mobilehome provided for in this title shall be not less than twenty feet in width and shall have a floor area of not less than one thousand three hundred square feet exclusive of any appurtenant struc- tures. 204-1 (Rolling Hills 11/86) LAW OFFICES PASS 8c CARLSON RONALD C. PASS SHANE A, CARLSON DENNIS F. DONOVAN BONITA S. MOSHER MARGARET T. COLLINS GAIL M. ROBILLARD TRACY A. TAYLOR NANCY A. HARDEN WAYLAND B. AUGUR, JR. OF COUNSEL February 2, 1990 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California, 90274 Re: Documentation Reauest Zoning Case No. 411 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton 77 Eastfield Drive Dear Commission Members: SUITE 840 UNION BANK BUILDING DEL AMO FINANCIAL. CENTER 21515 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90503-6542 TELEPHONE (213) 540-5700 FAX (213) 316 8100 OUR FILE NO. 1971-4133 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By- 1:: r'.,/-r? -- As you may be aware, Pass & Carlson has been retained by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton to represent their interests with regard to the above -described zoning application for a bedroom addition to the existing residence, and the claims of Dr. and Mrs. Richard Witmer regarding the garage/tack room, already constructed on the Fenton's property, and related issues. In this regard, you have already spoken with an associate from our office, Nancy A. Harden. Our research and analysis indicates that the Witmers' claims are essentially groundless, and do not seem to warrant any serious attention. From Ms. Harden's conversations with you, however, it appears a possible snag is that the Planning Commission claims that the landscaping plans provided by the Fentons did not identify the garage/tack room structure as a "garage." The implication is that the approval acquired by the Fentons was acquired fraudulently. Please be advised that the Fentons did, in fact, provide all landscaping plans to both the Planning Commission and the Association. Both entities "signed off" on all the plans. If, at present, the Planning Commission cannot locate any or all pages of the landscaping plans, which clearly identify the subject structure as a garage, it is not because the Fentons did not provide these documents to the Planning Commission. Before the Planning Commission seriously infers that any approval acquired by the Fentons was acquired fraudulently, the Fentons request that the Planning Commission obtain from the Association the landscaping plans and specifications provided by the Fentons to the Association. Since a copy of the plans and specifications, as finally approved, must be deposited for permanent record with the • Planning Commission Re: Fenton - 77 Eastfield Drive February 2, 1990 Page 2 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By � ./-i'-- Association, pursuant to the Association's own rules, quite probably the missing page or pages of the landscaping plans would appear in the purportedly complete set on file with the Association. The Fentons further request that the Association be accomplished well in advance Attorney opinion on the relevant issues, or, at hearing set in this matter. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Very truly yours, PASS & CARLSON /fri GAIL M. ROBILLARD GMR:cp cc: Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton c:\wp\FENTON\pl-com.ltr>cp acquisition of these plans from the of the dissemination of any City least, before the February 20, 1990 LAW OFFICES PASS 8c CARLSON RONALD C. PASS SHANE A. CARLSON DENNIS F. DONOVAN BONITA S. MOSHER MARGARET T. COLLINS GAIL M. ROBILLARD TRACY A. TAYLOR NANCY A. HARDEN WAYLAND B. AUGUR, JR. OF COUNSEL February 2, 1990 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California, 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 411 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton 77 Eastfield Drive Dear Commission Members: SUITE 840 UNION BANK BUILDING DEL AMO FINANCIAL CENTER 21515 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90503-6542 TELEPHONE (213) 540-5700 FAX (213) 316 8100 OUR FILE NO. 1971-4133 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS As you may be aware, Pass & Carlson has been retained by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton to represent their interests in the above -entitled matter, and with regard to the claims of Dr. and Mrs. Richard Witmer concerning the Fentons' garage/tack room, and related issues. At this time, it appears that all parties are endeavoring to thoughtfully and thoroughly evaluate the Witmers' claims. Our completed analysis indicates that such claims are groundless. However, regardless of the outcome of such claims, the Fentons' variance request regarding their proposed bedroom addition to the existing residence should not in anv wav be affected by either the existence of the claims, or the result of any analysis of the claims. One issue simply has nothing to do with the other. The Fentons are thus confident that their variance application will be treated on its own merits by the Planning Commission, as if the Witmers' claims had never been mace. Tne propriety of these considerations are even more obvious in light of the non -meritorious nature of the Witmers' claims. The Planning Commission should also remain mindful of the fact that all experts agree that there is no other location on the Fentons' property for the proposed addition, so a decision to deny the variance would have the practical effect of denying the Fentons any further expansion. To base a decision on the zoning variance on the existence or nature of the Witmers' claims, even partially, would be inappropriate and inequitable. We trust that the Planning Commission will treat these issues as separate and distinct. Very truly yours, PASS & CARLSON M GAIL M. ROBILLARD GMR:cp cc: Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton DR. AND MRS. RICHARD WITMER 79 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hilis No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hilis, California 90274 JAN 1 6 1990 CITY OF ROLLING FULLS By 1` Z c ( RE: Side Yard Variance Request By Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton of 77 Eastfield Drive Ladies and Gentlemen: We have lived for fourteen years in Rolling Hills at 79 Eastfield Drive, next door to the current home of Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton (77 Eastfield Drive). This letter is to (i) inform you of our objection to the Fentons' application for a side yard variance (to be heard at a meeting of the Planning Commission on January 16, 1990) (ii) advise you of our concern that certain ordinances and procedures prescribed by the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills (the "Code") have not been followed and (iii) request that no action be taken on the Fentons' application until the issues raised herein are resolved either through proper administrative channels or through the courts. We object to the Fentons' application for a variance that would enable them to build an addition to their house for the following reasons: First, the Fentons have within the last year erected a second garage below their home in violation of Section 17.16.010 of the Code. Construction of any structure that is not permitted under the Code requires either a variance or a conditional use permit. The Fentons obtained neither. Indeed, had the Fentons requested either a variance or conditional use permit, we would have been notified and given an opportunity to object to the Fentons' plan to access this garage by using the easement that runs between 77 and 79 Eastfield. Instead, the garage was built without our knowledge and the Fentons have altered substantially the easement (i.e., bridal trail) to provide access to the garage. (The Fentons do not deny that the structure recently built on their property is a garage and not just a "stable." In fact, during the Planning Commission's on -site review held January 6, 1990, the City Manager and Dr. Fenton plainly acknowledged that the structure is a garage. Dr. Fenton also stated during the review that he anticipated needing to access the garage at least "once a day.") Second, the Fentons have built a third driveway to access their second garage in violation of Section 17.16.115 which prohibits "additional vehicular access ways to roadways." Creation of an additional vehicular access way or driveway under the Code requires a variance or a conditional use permit. The Fentons obtained neither. Again, had the Fentons requested either a variance or a conditional use permit to create an additional vehicular access way from the easement between 77 and 79 Eastfield to their second garage, we would have been given an opportunity to object to a variance or a conditional use permit at a hearing. In addition, during the January 6th on -site review, the City Manager said that the Fentons did not need a variance for their third driveway because the driveway is connected to an easement rather than a paved road (such as Eastfield). This is wrong. According to the definition of "road" or "roadway" in Section 10.04.150 of the Code, a roadway includes a "way or place...maintained by. the [Rolling Hills Community Association]...." The easement between 77 and 79 Eastfield is maintained by the Association and thus plainly falls within the Code definition of road or roadway. Moreover, by allowing the Fentons to "connect" their third driveway to the easement and, as a result, have access to Eastfield, the Planning Commission would contravene the City's long -held prohibitions against (i) circular driveways and (ii) separate driveways to guest houses and other accessory structures. Third, the Fentons' application for a variance is based in part on their claim that the Association has given them "permission" to access their "stable" over the easement between 77 and 79 Eastfield. Section 10.64.190 of the Code requires written permission of the City to operate a motor, vehicle on the riding trails. We do not know if such written permission was granted to the Fentons to use the trail as a driveway to access their auxiliary garage. What we do know, however, is that while the Association may, customarily, allow occasional access over the easements and bridal trails to stables for hay deliveries and horse trailers, it has not permitted vehicular access to an additional driveway and second garage -- to do so would circumvent the City's ordinances regarding driveways and access to accessory structures. Even if the Fentons received permission to use the easement to access their • stable, it is unclear that permission was given to access a second garage on a daily basis. What is clear, however, is that no consideration has been given to the impact of such daily use on our property. Indeed, the Fentons have not simply accessed a stable for periodic hay deliveries over the easement. Rather, they have recontoured the trail, dug out a portion of the original dirt and laid decomposed granite (a red gravelly substance) -- all in an effort to facilitate vehicular access to their third driveway and second garage. They have also built, with cement and railroad ties, a set of stairs leading from their side yard and a planter which extends several feet into the trail as well as cement banking curving from the center of the easement to form a driveway onto their property. As a result, traffic using the new roadway/driveway encroaches upon that portion of the easement that is on our property and kicks up considerable quantities of dust onto the plantings and into the windows of our home as well as creating a great deal of noise and visual intrusion into the peaceful enjoyment of our property. Accordingly, we would request an opportunity to challenge the extent and propriety of the "permission" the Fentons purport to have received to use the easement in this manner. (It is our understanding that the Association is on notice of the Fentons' alteration to the trail and has not yet determined what actions it will take to remedy the situation.) Fourth, the Fentons' proprietary actions and alterations to the easement have already and will continue to threaten the future use and enjoyment of our property and of the easement as a bridle trail. The Planning Commission is charged with (i) "regulating the use of land...to preserve the physical environment..." and to direct the development of land to continue "...the existing rural open areas surrounding the existing residences..." and (ii) the enforcement of all zoning ordinances as well as carefully scrutinizing all variance requests to protect bridal trails (see Section 2.20.010 of the Code). The Fentons' development of their land without variances or conditional use permits plainly violates several zoning ordinances of the Code. Their proprietary use of the easement to access their auxiliary garage has disrupted the rural atmosphere we have enjoyed for fourteen years in Rolling Hills. We, therefore, urge you not to grant the side yard variance requested by the Fentons until the issues raised herein are resolved either by appropriate administrative channels within the City or through the courts. ncerly, Dr. Richard Witmer Joyce Witmer cc: William S. Koenig, Esq. Melinda C. Witmer, Esq. • • City ofiellinv INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 TO: NEIL STANTON PALMER, 2601 AIRPORT DRIVE, SUITE 310, TORRANCE, CA 90505 FROM: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS The plan for RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS Applicant: DR. ROBERT FENTON Address: 77 EASTFIELD (a) Complies with City Zoning requirements (b) XX Needs Variance (SECTION 17.16.070(A) SIDE YARDED Application attached. (c) Needs Conditional Use Permit Application attached. (d) Needs Site Plan Review Application attached. (e) xx Other (see Below) PROPERTY IN THE RAS-2 ZONE REQUIRES A 35 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. NOVEMBER 16, 1989 mf 1-/a." R. HAMADA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: PROPERTY SIZE AND LOCATION: APPLICANT: SPECIFIC REQUEST: MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPLICATION: DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: • City 0/ leoffinl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Request for Side Yard Setback Variance Zoning Case No. 411 2.560 acres gross, Lot 15-EF; 77 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton Variance to encroach into the Side Yard Setback to construct an addition to the existing residence Title 17, Zoning; Section 17.16.070: Side Yard Tuesday, January 16, 1990 - 7:30 P.M. Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Your input is requested by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills to assist in evaluating this proposal. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and drawings prior to the public hearing, at the City Hall/Administration Building, located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (closed 12:00 noon to 1:0.0 p.m.), Monday through Friday. City SUBJECT: PROPERTY SIZE AND LOCATION: APPLICANT: SPECIFIC REQUEST: MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPLICATION: DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: o1) R0fiL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Request for Side Yard Setback Variance - Zoning Case No. 411 2.560 acres gross, Lot 15-EF; 77 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton Variance to encroachinto the Side Yard Setback to construct an addition to the existing residence Title 17, Zoning; Section 17.16.070: Side Yard Tuesday, December 12, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Your input is requested by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills to assist in evaluating this proposal. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and drawings prior to the public hearing, at the City Hall/Administration Building, located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (closed 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday. Publish in Rolling Hills Herald and Palos Verdes Peninsula News December 2, 1989 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp (26155 C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the Palos Verdes Peninsula News a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published semi —weekly in the City of Rolling Hills Estates County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of June 2 r 19 50 Case Number 57294 8 ; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in' any supplement thereof on the Allowing dates, to -wit: all in the year 19 89. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Rolling Hills Estates California, tls day of �19 11 7 cd3Ignature '— km copal of tble blank form may be secured from: California Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc. Advertising Clearing House P.O. Box 31. Los Angeles, CA 90053 (213) 625-2541 Please request CENTRAL proof of Publication . whets otdertz% thle form PvP Proof of Publication of 'I R.H.H. No. 2912 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: 'Request for Side Yard Setback Var- iance—Zonir1g Case No. 411. PROPERTY SIZE AND LOCATION: 2.560 acres gross, Lot 15-EF: 77 East - field Drive, Rolling Hills: APPLICANT: Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fenton. SPECIFIC REQUEST: Var- iance to encroach into the Side Yard Setback to con- struct an addition to the existing residence. MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPLICATION: Title 17, Zoning; Section 17.16.070: Side Yard. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, December 12, 1989-' 7:30 P.M. PLACE OF HEARING: Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, Adminis- tration Building, 2 Portu- guese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274. Your input is requested by the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Rolling Hills to assist in evaluat- ing this proposal. Any person is welcome to review the subject appli- cation and drawings prior to the public hearing, at the City Hall/Administra- tion Building, located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Closed 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday Publish in Rolling Hills Herald and Palos Verdes Peninsula News I December 2, 1989.