709, Construction of retaining wall, Staff ReportsDATE:
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
• •
e•4t opeo etina
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
Agenda Item No.: 4C
Mtg. Date: 9 / 26 / 05
SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-27. A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
RETAINING WALL ALONG A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT
SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA),
(CURTO).
1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-27, which is attached, on
September 20, 2005 at their regular meeting granting approval in Zoning Case No. 709.
The vote was 4-0-1. Chairwoman DeRoy was absent and excused.
2. The applicants request a Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct a retaining
wall, which would vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6" and which would be located in the
front setback at an existing single family residence.
3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and is 2.03 acres (gross) in size and 1.74 acres net,
(75,920 sq.ft.). The residence is currently undergoing a substantial addition, alteration
and remodel, which were administratively approved in 2003. Subject property is a flag
lot and the property is accessed from Bowie Road via a long driveway, which is parallel
to two adjacent lots.
4. A retaining wall along the driveway to subject property was constructed with the
original house in 1966. According to the Community Association Manager (see attached
letter) due to the topography of the lot and location of the building site it was necessary
to locate the driveway and the wall in the Association's easement, partially on the
subject property and partially on the property to the south at 16 Bowie Road, Mr. and
Mrs. Sulmeyer. During the recent improvements to the property, the property owner
removed the dilapidated wall. A new wall is necessary to protect the driveway and the
hillside above. The applicant has obtained permission from the adjacent property owner
at 16 Bowie Road, in whose easement a portion of the wall is proposed to be located.
ZC NO. 709
O
@Printert on Recycled I'rier
5. The driveway and the retaining wall are located in the front setback. The Site
Plan and Variance reviews were triggered as a result of the applicant removing the wall
and cutting the hillside to widen the driveway. The original driveway varied in width
between 8 feet to 9 feet and the retaining wall varied in height from 1.5 feet to 4 feet.
The proposed driveway will vary in width from 9 feet to 11 feet and the proposed wall
will vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6". The portion of the wall, proposed to be located in
the neighbors' easement will be between 2 feet and 4 feet.
6. Staff visited the, site with the Building Inspector after staff was alerted that a
portion of the retaining wallhas been removed and a cut made into the hill. The
Building Inspector required that a temporary wall be constructed to prevent erosion.
7. The condition of approval require that the new wall be engineered to County's
specifications.
8. The applicants' representative states that the Variance for the wall is necessary
because the wall is an integral part of the driveway and is needed in order to control the
hillside above. Only minor modifications to the original wall are proposed.
9. The lot is developed (after completion of the construction) with a 3,152 square
foot residence, 580 square foot garage, 420 square foot swimming pool with 42 square
foot pool equipment area, 400 square foot stable and service yard. One, 13,180 square
foot building pad exists on the lot. Building pad coverage on this pad is 4,690 square
feet or 35.6%, which includes all the structures.
10. The net lot area of the lot is 75,920 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is
4,690 square feet or 6.2%, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the
structures and paved areas is 8,795 square feet or 11.6%, (35% permitted).
11. Disturbed area of the net lot is 17,002 square feet or 22.4% (40% permitted).
Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes
and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will
remain or are proposed to be added.
12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
ZC NO. 709
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and
zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied the property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
ZC NO. 709
PM"It$
FEB 0 3 20055 cRoffin9 1LL'. Community
og&.wcLa.tlon
of Bono 20 J3aL01 ` niATLS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS NO. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(310) 544-6222
ROLLING MILLS
Memorandum
CALIFORNIA
(310) 544-6766 FAX
To: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills
From: Peggy R. Minor, Association Manager ",--�
Date: January 26, 2005 / -
Re: Curto Property at 18 Bowie Road
In reply to your request relating to the Curto Property at 18 Bowie Road,
the original driveway and residence was approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association in January 1966.
Due to topography and location of the building site, it was necessary to
locate the driveway and retaining wall in the Association easement. The
builder was also requested to install a 3 rail fence on the opposite side of
the driveway (Northerly).
Mr. Curto was requested to remove this interior fence and regrade the
driveway, bringing the dilapidated wall and fence into compliance with
existing Building codes of the City and Association.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
PRM:jr
cc: Mr. Renato Curto
RH CITY — Schwartz — Curto 1-26-05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG A
DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18 BOWIE
ROAD (LOT 9-CRA), (CURTO).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. Renato Curto with respect
to real property located at 18 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 9-CRA) requesting a
Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct an approximately 185 foot long
retaining wall in the front setback at a property where a substantial addition and
remodel of a single family residence is underway.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application on July 19, 2005, August 16, 2005 and at a
field trip on August 16, 2005. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in
writing by 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
applicant's representatives were present at the meetings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and is 2.03 acres (gross) in size
and 1.74 acres net, (75,920 sq.ft.). Subject property is a flag lot and the property is
accessed from Bowie Road via a long driveway, which is parallel to two adjacent
lots.
Section 4. A retaining wall along the driveway to subject property was
constructed with the original house in 1966. The original driveway and a portion
of the wall were partially located in the easement of the property to the south at
16 Bowie Road. During the recent improvements to subject property, the property
owner removed the dilapidated wall and commenced to widen the driveway by
few feet by cutting into the adjacent hillside. A new wall is necessary to protect
the driveway and the hillside above. The adjacent property owner at 16 Bowie
Road, in whose easement a portion of the wall is proposed to be located, is in
favor of this project.
Section 5. The driveway and the retaining wall are located in the front
setback. The Site Plan Review and Variance were triggered as a result of the
applicant removing the wall and widening the driveway. The original driveway
varied in width between 8 feet to 9 feet and the retaining wall varied in height
from 1.5 feet to 4 feet. The proposed driveway will vary in width from 9 feet to
11 feet and the proposed wall will vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6". The portion of
the wall, which is to be located in the neighbors' easement will be between 2 feet
and 4 feet in height.
RPcn Inns_-)7
rl
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt
from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Section 17.16.110 requires that the front yard setback be fifty
(50) feet from the roadway easement line, and be unobstructed from the ground
upwards. In order to continue the use of the driveway it is necessary to
reconstruct the wall. Such retaining wall, having a maximum height of 5 feet 6
inches is proposed to be constructed in the front setback. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission 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
is developed with a substantial slope from the front property line to the 50-foot
front yard setback line. The proposed retaining wall will assist in preventing an
existing slope from potential collapse, and will protect the hillside from damage
due to erosion.
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 and irregular shape of the property, the developable portion of this lot is
about 20 feet lower than the street above (cul-de-sac), and therefore the access
must be sloped towards the building pad, which requires a wall.
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 is necessary
to prevent land movement and erosion of the land above it. There was a similar
wall constructed with the original house, which became dilapidated and is in
need of reconstruction. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity
for any grading of the hillside.
Section 8. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development 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 permission
for grading for the construction of the retaining wall the Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures
comply with the General Plan requirement for providing safety amenities.
Grading in this case constitutes the cutting of the hillside of more than 3 feet in
height. The proposed project is located below along a driveway so as to reduce
the visual impact from the street.
P cn Inn;_1'7
• •
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been
considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed construction will be constructed in an area,
which already contained a similar structure, and this is a replacement of an old
retaining wall, though in a slightly different location. The retaining wall will be
least intrusive to surrounding properties, as it will be visible only from subject
property, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it 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, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood
when compared to properties in the vicinity. The proposed structures will follow
the pattern of a previous wall.
D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the
lot will be left undeveloped.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern in the vicinity
and will utilize a driveway from an existing street.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the
record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance and Site Plan
Review to permit widening of the driveway and the construction of a retaining
wall that will be located in the front setback, subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within
two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and
17.47.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of these sections.
B. If any conditions of approval 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.
Peen 7nnS_77
zo
• •
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 this approval.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan, dated July 12, 2005, except as otherwise provided
in these conditions.
E. Grading for this project consists of cutting into the hillside more
than 3 feet.
F. The maximum height of the retaining wall from the finished grade
shall not exceed 5 feet 6 inches.
G. Drainage for the wall and driveway shall be developed and
constructed per County District Engineer's requirements.
H. The retaining wall shall be engineered and construted per County
District Engineer's requirements.
I. 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.
J. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best
Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste, erosion control and storm
water pollution prevention.
K. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project must be reviewed
and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association.
L. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicants shall execute
an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variance and the Site Plan
approval, or the approval shall not be effective.
M. All conditions, when applicable, of the Variance and Site Plan
approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from
the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005.
/ 1
1-RJVEevv i , VICE CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RPc„ )nns_r7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2005-27 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG A
DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18
BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA), (CURTO).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 20, 2005 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Henke, Sommer and Vice Chairman Witte.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairwoman DeRoy.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY TY CLERK
Reso. 2005-27
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
•
sty o/� e�nS �r,eP
•
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 20, 2005
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 709
18 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA)
RA-S-2, 2.03 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. AND MRS. RENATO CURTO
DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON
ENGINEERING
JULY 9, 2005
REQUEST
Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and a Variance to construct a retaining wall
along a driveway in the front setback at an existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. At the August 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the proposed project. The vote
was 4-0-1. Chairwoman De Roy abstained due to proximity of subject property to
her property.
2. The attached Resolution No. 2005-27 contains standard findings of facts
and conditions, including that the retaining wall be engineered to County
specifications.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2005-27
approving this development.
@Punted on Recycled F'>grnr
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG A
DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18 BOWIE
ROAD (LOT 9-CRA), (CURTO).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. Renato Curto with respect
to real property located at 18 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 9-CRA) requesting a
Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct an approximately 185 foot long
retaining wall in the front setback at a property where a substantial addition and
remodel of a single family residence is underway.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application on July 19, 2005, August 16, 2005 and at a
field trip on August 16, 2005. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in
writing by 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
applicant's representatives were present at the meetings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and is 2.03 acres (gross) in size
and 1.74 acres net, (75,920 sq.ft.). Subject property is a flag lot and the property is
accessed from Bowie Road via a long driveway, which is parallel to two adjacent
lots.
Section 4. A retaining wall along the driveway to subject property was
constructed with the original house in 1966. The original driveway and a portion
of the wall were partially located in the easement of the property to the south at
16 Bowie Road. During the recent improvements to subject property, the property
owner removed the dilapidated wall and commenced to widen the driveway by
few feet by cutting into the adjacent hillside. A new wall is necessary to protect
the driveway and the hillside above. The adjacent property owner at 16 Bowie
Road, in whose easement a portion of the wall is proposed to be located, is in
favor of this project.
Section 5. The driveway and the retaining wall are located in the front
setback. The Site Plan Review and Variance were triggered as a result of the
applicant removing the wall and widening the driveway. The original driveway
varied in width between 8 feet to 9 feet and the retaining wall varied in height
from 1.5 feet to 4 feet. The proposed driveway will vary in width from 9 feet to
11 feet and the proposed wall will vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6". The portion of
the wall, which is to be located in the neighbors' easement will be between 2 feet
and 4 feet in height.
Peen 7(1(1S_77
• •
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt
from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Section 17.16.110 requires that the front yard setback be fifty
(50) feet from the roadway easement line, and be unobstructed from the ground
upwards. In order to continue the use of the driveway it is necessary to
reconstruct the wall. Such retaining wall, having a maximum height of 5 feet 6
inches is proposed to be constructed in the front setback. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission 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
is developed with a substantial slope from the front property line to the 50-foot
front yard setback line. The proposed retaining wall will assist in preventing an
existing slope from potential collapse, and will protect the hillside from damage
due to erosion.
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 and irregular shape of the property, the developable portion of this lot is
about 20 feet lower than the street above (cul-de-sac), and therefore the access
must be sloped towards the building pad, which requires a wall.
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 is necessary
to prevent land movement and erosion of the land above it. There was a similar
wall constructed with the original house, which became dilapidated and is in
need of reconstruction. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity
for any grading of the hillside.
Section 8. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development 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 permission
for grading for the construction of the retaining wall the Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures
comply with the General Plan requirement for providing safety amenities.
Grading in this case constitutes the cutting of the hillside of more than 3 feet in
height. The proposed project is located below along a driveway so as to reduce
the visual impact from the street.
ppe„ lnnG-17
• •
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been
considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed construction will be constructed in an area,
which already contained a similar structure, and this is a replacement of an old
retaining wall, though in a slightly different location. The retaining wall will be
least intrusive to surrounding properties, as it will be visible only from subject
property, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it 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, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood
when compared to properties in the vicinity. The proposed structures will follow
the pattern of a previous wall.
D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the
lot will be left undeveloped.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern in the vicinity
and will utilize a driveway from an existing street.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the
record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance and Site Plan
Review to permit widening of the driveway and the construction of a retaining
wall that will be located in the front setback, subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within
two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and
17.47.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of these sections.
B. If any conditions of approval 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.
Peen nnnc_'77
• •
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 this approval.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan, dated July 12, 2005, except as otherwise provided
in these conditions.
E. Grading for this project consists of cutting into the hillside more
than 3 feet.
F. The maximum height of the retaining wall from the finished grade
shall not exceed 5 feet 6 inches.
G. Drainage for the wall and driveway shall be developed and
constructed per County District Engineer's requirements.
H. The retaining wall shall be engineered and construted per County
District Engineer's requirements.
I. 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.
J. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best
Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste, erosion control and storm
water pollution prevention.
K. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project must be reviewed
and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association.
L. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicants shall execute
an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variance and the Site Plan
approval, or the approval shall not be effective.
M. All conditions, when applicable, of the Variance and Site Plan
approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from
the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005.
ARVEL WITTE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
PPen 7nnc_77
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2005-27 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG A
DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18
BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA), (CURTO).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 20, 2005 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
RPen 7MK-77
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
•
Cry oe{2?P,,.S Jh/P,
AUGUST 16, 2005
B)
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
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 709
18 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA)
RA-S-2, 2.03 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. AND MRS. RENATO CURTO
DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON
ENGINEERING
JULY 9, 2005
Request for a Variance to construct a retaining wall along a driveway in the front
setback at an existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. At the July 19, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission scheduled a site visit for
tonight to view the proposed project.
2. The applicants request a Variance to construct a retaining wall, which would
vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6" and which would be located in the front setback at an
existing single family residence.
3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and is 2.03 acres (gross) in size and 1.74 acres net,
(75,920 sq.ft.). The residence is currently undergoing a substantial addition, alteration
and remodel, which were administratively approved in 2003. Subject property is a flag
lot and the property is accessed from Bowie Road via a long driveway, which is parallel
to two adjacent lots.
4. A retaining wall along the driveway to subject property was constructed with the
original house in 1966. According to the Community Association Manager (see attached
letter) due to the topography of the lot and location of the building site it was necessary
to locate the driveway and the wall in the Association's easement, partially on the
subject property and partially on the property to the south at 16 Bowie Road, Mr. and
Mrs. Sulmeyer. During the recent improvements to the property, the property owner
removed the dilapidated wall and commenced to widen the driveway by few feet. A
new wall is necessary to protect the driveway and the hillside above. The applicant is
ZC NO. 709
R/1 A/fl
�o
Printed on F'iQcyr.;lnd F°;ila,
• •
working with the adjacent property owner at 16 Bowie Road, in whose easement a
portion of the wall is proposed to be located, to obtain an agreement for such
construction. A letter from Mr. Sulmeyer expressing that no further work be done until
his consent is given and the Community Association and the City approve the project.
5. The driveway and the retaining wall are located in the front setback. The
Variance review was triggered as a result of the applicant removing the wall and
widening the driveway. The original driveway varied in width between 8 feet to 9 feet
and the retaining wall varied in height from 1.5 feet to 4 feet. The proposed driveway
will vary in width from 9 feet to 11 feet and the proposed wall will vary in height from
1'8" to 5'6". The portion of the wall, which is to be located in the neighbors' easement
will be between 2 feet and 4 feet.
6. Staff visited the site with the Building Inspector after staff was alerted that a
portion of the retaining wall has been removed and a cut made into the hill. The
Building Inspector required that a temporary wall be constructed to prevent erosion.
7. It will be required that the wall be engineered to County's specifications.
8. The applicants' representative states that the Variance for the wall is necessary
because the wall is an integral part of the driveway and is needed in order to control the
hillside above. Only minor modifications to the original wall are proposed.
9. The lot is developed with a 3,152 square foot residence, 580 square foot garage,
420 square foot swimming pool with 42 square foot pool equipment area, 400 square
foot stable and service yard. One, 13,180 square foot building pad exists on the lot.
Building pad coverage on this pad is 4,690 square feet or 35.6%, which includes all the
structures.
10. The net lot area of the lot is 75,920 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is
4,690 square feet or 6.2%, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the
structures and paved areas is 8,795 square feet or 11.6%, (35% permitted).
11. Disturbed area of the net lot is 17,002 square feet or 22.4% (40% permitted).
Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes
and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will
remain or are proposed to be added.
12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the project and take
public testimony.
ZC NO. 709
R/1F/n5
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and
zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied the property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
ZC NO. 709
R11 61n5
r1251M t •
F E B 0 3 2005 CROfett29 o /Lf6.. eomnzu.nLt9 soeca.fion
of eRa,zar:o �aros <Uezc%s
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(310) 544-6222
ROLLING HILLS
Memorandum
To:
From: Peggy R. Minor, Association Manager
Date: January 26, 2005
Re: Curto Property at 18 Bowie Road
•
CALIFORNIA
(310) 544-6766 FAX
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills
In reply to your request relating to the Curto Property at 18 Bowie Road,
the original driveway and residence was approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association in January 1966.
Due to topography and location of the building site, it was necessary to
locate the driveway and retaining wall in the Association easement. The
builder was also requested to install a 3 rail fence on the opposite side of
the driveway (Northerly).
Mr. Curto was requested to remove this interior fence and regrade the
driveway, bringing the dilapidated wall and fence into compliance with
existing Building codes of the City and Association.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
PRM:jr
cc: Mr. Renato Curto
4�
RH CITY — Schwartz — Curto 1-26-05
J01 11 05 O1:28p
Rolling Hills
07/11/2005 12. 13 FAX 213 G234520 •
SULMEYERKUPETZ
3105E1s7ss
C V V L, V V L
p.1
July 11, 2005
VIA TELECOPIER
(310) 544-6766
SulmeyerKupetz
A F. R O F E, 8 8 I' 0 N A L C D R P D R A T I O N
AT.O1114ETE nr TAw lIKCE I012
Rolling Hills Community Association
Attn: Peggy Minor
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case No. 709
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Renato Curto
18 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills, CA
Gentlemen:
By
E -MAIL IW6Myg•ewhWyodaw.com
DIRECT DIAL 213.617321a
FILENO,
JUL 1 1 2005.
CITY OF FiOLUNG HILLS
Mrs. Sulmeyer and I reside at 16 Bowie Road. The Curto request for a
variance for grading and construction of retaining wall along the driveway actually
involves work on a portion of our property, which is subject to an existing easement for
ingress and egress. Unfortunately, Mr. Curto cut into our hillside, which was theretofore
in a natural state of repose, without obtaining either our consent, or a permit from the
City of Rolling Hills. The purpose of this letter, and our communication with the
Planning Director of the City of Rolling Hills is to insure that no further work is done on
our property without our written approval, and appropriate variances and permits from
the City of Rolling Hills.
Thls will confirm my telephone conversation of a few moments ago with
Peggy Minor of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Peggy confirmed that the
Association has not signed any consent or approval in connection with Zoning Case No.
709, and that the Association will not sign any consent or approval with reference to
said zoning case until after final action has been taken by the City of Rolling Hills in
connection with said zoning case,
Thank you for your cooperation.
IS:dap
cc: Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Dir: or
(310) 377.7288
1 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET. THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES. CA 90071.1400 • TELEPHONE 213,020.2311 - FACSIMILE 213.829.4620
1080 MARSH ROAD, SUITE 110, MENLO PARK, CA 04025 • TELEPHONE 650.326.2245 • FACSIMILE 650.325.5134
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
•
City ./ leolliny
•
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
JULY 19, 2005
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
Request for a Variance to construct a retaining wall along a driveway in the front
setback at an existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
ZONING CASE NO. 709
18 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA)
RA-S-2, 2.03 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. AND MRS. RENATO CURTO
DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON
ENGINEERING
JULY 9, 2005
1. The applicants request a Variance to construct a retaining wall, which would
vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6" and which would be located in the front setback at an
existing single family residence.
2. The property is zoned RAS-2 and is 2.03 acres (gross) in size and 1.74 acres net,
(75,920 sq.ft.). The residence is currently undergoing a substantial addition, alteration
and remodel, which were administratively approved in 2003. Subject property is a flag
lot and the property is accessed from Bowie Road via a long driveway, which is parallel
to two adjacent lots.
3. A retaining wall along the driveway to subject property was constructed with the
original house in 1966. According to the Community Association Manager (see attached
letter) due to the topography of the lot and location of the building site it was necessary
to locate the driveway and the wall in the Association's easement, partially on the
subject property and partially on the property to the south at 16 Bowie Road, Mr. and
Mrs. Sulmeyer. During the recent improvements to the property, the property owner
removed the dilapidated wall and commenced to widen the driveway by few feet. A
new wall is necessary to protect the driveway and the hillside above. The applicant is
working with the adjacent property owner at 16 Bowie Road, in whose easement a
portion of the wall is proposed to be located, to obtain an agreement for such
®Printed ori FiecyclodPnper,
•..
construction. A letter from Mr. Sulmeyer expressing that no further work be done until
his consent is given and the Community Association and the City approve the project.
4. The driveway and the retaining wall are located in the front setback. The
Variance review was triggered as a result of the applicant removing the wall and
widening the driveway. The original driveway varied in width between 8 feet to 9 feet
and the retaining wall varied in height from 1.5 feet to 4 feet. The proposed driveway
will vary in width from 9 feet to 11 feet and the proposed wall will vary in height from
1'8" to 5'6". The portion of the wall, which is to be located in the neighbors' easement
will be between 2 feet and 4 feet.
5. Staff visited the site with the Building Inspector after staff was alerted that a
portion of the retaining wall has been removed and a cut made into the hill. The
Building Inspector required that a temporary wall be constructed to prevent erosion.
6. It will be required that the wall be engineered to County's specifications.
7. The applicants' representative states that the Variance for the wall is necessary
because the wall is an integral part of the driveway and is needed in order to control the
hillside above. Only minor modifications to the original wall are proposed.
8. The lot is developed with a 3,152 square foot residence, 580 square foot garage,
420 square foot swimming pool with 42 square foot pool equipment area, 400 square
foot stable and service yard. One, 13,180 square foot building pad exists on the lot.
Building pad coverage on this pad is 4,690 square feet or 35.6%, which includes all the
structures.
9. The net lot area of the lot is 75,920 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is
4,690 square feet or 6.2%, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the
structures and paved areas is 8,795 square feet or 11.6%, (35% permitted).
10. Disturbed area of the net lot is 17,002 square feet or 22.4% (40% permitted).
Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes
and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will
remain or are proposed to be added.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open
the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and
zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied the property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
By
•
F f B 0 3 2005 cl oLfUng iLfi. Community og4loe1ation
of eRatzcrzo J�a�as �/e¢des
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS NQ. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 544-6222
ROLLING HILLS
Memorandum
•
CALIFORNIA
(310) 544-6766 FAX
To: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills
From: Peggy R. Minor, Association Manager--'
Date: January 26, 2005
Re: Curto Property at 18 Bowie Road
In reply to your request relating to the Curto Property at 18 Bowie Road,
the original driveway and residence was approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association in January 1966.
Due to topography and location of the building site, it was necessary to
locate the driveway and retaining wall in the Association easement. The
builder was also requested to install a 3 rail fence on the opposite side of
the driveway (Northerly).
Mr. Curto was requested to remove this interior fence and regrade the
driveway, bringing the dilapidated wall and fence into compliance with
existing Building codes of the City and Association.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
PRM:jr
cc: Mr. Renato Curto
RH CITY — Schwartz — Curto 1-26-05
Uf s I I/ LUU3 IL: IL rnx 'L I J 623452O
July 11, 2005
VIA TELECOPIER
(310) 544-6766
i
SulrneyerKupetz
SULMEYERKUPETZ
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
•TTORNET3 AT L•* SINCE 1977
Rolling Hills Community Association
Attn: Peggy Minor
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case No. 709
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Renato Curto
18 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills, CA
Gentlemen:
By
002/002
E-MAIL kulmeNINulmerr*Iaw.co.n
DIRECT DIAL 213.617.521e
FILE NO.
JUL 1 i [i E5
CITY OF FiGL!_,N•a 3
Mrs. Sulmeyer and I reside at 16 Bowie Road. The Curto request for a
variance for grading and construction of retaining wall along the driveway actually
involves work on a portion of our property, which is subject to an existing easement for
ingress and egress. Unfortunately, Mr. Curio cut into our hillside, which was theretofore
in a natural state of repose, without obtaining either our consent, or a permit from the
City of Rolling Hills. The purpose of this letter, and our communication with the
Planning Director of the City of Rolling Hills is to insure that no further work is done on
our property without our written approval, and appropriate variances and permits from
the City of Rolling Hills.
This will confirm my telephone conversation of a few moments ago with
Peggy Minor of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Peggy confirmed that the
Association has not signed any consent or approval in connection with Zoning Case No,
709, and that the Association will not sign any consent or approval with reference to
said zoning case until after final action has been taken by the City of Rolling Hills in
connection with said zoning case.
Thank you for your cooperation.
IS:dap
cc: Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Dir or
(310) 377-7288
m 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90071.1406 • TELEPHONE 213.626.2311 • FACSIMILE 213.629.4520
1000 MARSH ROAD, SUITE 110, MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • TELEPHONE 650.326.2245 - FACSIMILE 650.326.513d