795, Relocate and enlarge existing , Correspondence•
City o pet&
November 23, 2010
Mr. Spencer Karpf
14 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
)
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
Thank you for stopping by to discuss the proposed relocation of the motor court
(parking area) at 8 Maverick Lane. Following a visit to the property today and further
review, City staff has determined that the side setback along the westside of your
property shall be considered as one continuous setback. Thus, the proposed parking
area in the side setback will not exceed 10% of the total side setback. For formal
approval of the new location for the parking area, please provide the City with an
updated site plan including calculations for revised hardscape, quantities of any
anticipated grading, and .information/ details with regard to any additional walls to be
constructed. Per Resolutions 2008-18 and 2010-23 for the project (conditions AD and L,
respectively), if there is to be additional grading or structural development, it may be
necessary for the Planning Commission to review the proposed modification.
Additionally, Fire Department approval will be necessary.
I believe the intent of the 10% limit for a parking area within a side or front setback is to
retain open, unobstructed space (e.g., landscaping) between properties. Consistent with
the General Plan, this is to 'maintain privacy and distance between homes and related
uses and to not have a large parking area along the perimeter of a property. This
particular provision in the zoning code was adopted September 1981 and is referenced
in the Environmental Information Form submitted with development applications
(section 17g and 17h).
In our conversation, you suggested that a number of properties in the City appeared to
have driveways exceeding 10% of the side setback and inferred that City staff has not
been consistent in the application of the zoning. As stated in the enclosed portion of the
Municipal Code, the zoning code allows 20% of a setback to be used for a driveway.
With the distinction between driveways and parking areas in mind, we have reviewed
each property you cited and determined each property, where records exist, is
consistent with the zoning code.
• 18 Crest Road East: This property has four side yards due to its shape; of which
three are on the westside and one is on the eastside. 50% of the parking area is in
one of the side setbacks (the portion closest to the garage on the westside)
however; it constitutes just 6.5% of the total of that particular side setback.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Karpf
October 23, 2010
Page 2
•
• 22 Crest Road East: The parking area located in the front of the house is 7.7% of
the front yard setback.
• 26 Crest Road East: The parking area existed prior to 1981 when the zoning code
with the provision pertaining to parking areas was adopted. According to our
records, no driveway reconstruction has been made since 1975.
• 29 Crest Road East: The City has no records readily accessible on this property.
• 35 Crest Road East: The City has no records readily accessible on this property
• 18 Portuguese Bend Road: The parking area is not in any setback.
Furthermore, by way of example, the property at 3 Meadowlark, recently approved for
development, required a variance to have over 10% of its motor court area within the
setback and, the recent approval for 12 Ringbit East was conditioned with a
requirement that the parking area and the driveway not be enlarged.
In conclusion, City staff strives for consistency with the General Plan through its
approvals and in its application of the zoning code. Decisions relative to the zoning
code are made with the best interest of the City in mind with no prejudice to the
individual(s) submitting an application or seeking the approval. Staff is also able to
reconsider its decisions when presented with information and reasoning to justify a
change in course. Being mindful of the intent of the General Plan, the zoning code as
well as your request, we have determined your proposed motor court is allowable
within the existing setback. We would request/suggest, however, that you consider
softening the look of the parking area by utilizing a pervious surface, such as grass-
crete, on at least a portion of the parking pad.
Please submit the earlier referenced site plan information for review of the proposed
motor court for approval. Also, please do not hesitate to call Yolanta Schwartz or me if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
An f6n Dahlerbruch
City Manager
AD:h1
11-24-10 Karpfltr.doc
Enclosure
c: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
Criss Gunderson, Architect
17.16.135--17.16.150
•
terior edge of the roadway easement. (Ord. 295 §.7 (Exh. B.
(part)), 2004: Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.16.135 Setbacks located in easements. Where an
easement traverses the side or rear of any lot, and where
the width of the easement is greater than the width of the
setback, then the setback shall measure no less than the
width of the required easement. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B
(part)), 2004).
17.16.140 Permitted projections. The tol.lowing pro-
jections into setbacks are permitted subject to the speci-
fied conditions.
A. Projecting Architectural Features. Chimneys, bay
windows, cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses
or other similar architectural features, except those "en-
closing" structures enumerated in Section 17.16.200(K) of
this chapter, may extend or project into setbacks as fol-
lows:
1. Such architectural features may project into
side setback no more than two and one-half inches for each
one foot of the side setback, but in no case shall such
features project more than five feet;
2. Such architectural features may project into
a front or rear setback no more than four feet;
3. No permitted projection shall be constructed
in any manner, which increases the habitable floor area of
a structure.
B. Projecting Porches. An uncovered porch, patio,
platform or landing place may project into any front or
side setback no more than six feet or into a rear setback
without limitation. Such structures in a side setback
shall leave no less than five feet of unobstructed space
to the edge of a slope, if any, to allow for pedestrian
movement within the setback. Such structures shall not
extend above the floor level of the building to which they
are attached. If detached, such structures shall not ex-
tend above the level of the ground. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B
(part)), 2004: ,Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.16.150 Structures and driveways permitted in set-
backs. Setbacks shall be maintained unoccupied and unob-
structed by any structures except as listed below. Such
structures are also subject to approval by the Association.
217 (Rolling Hills #4, 3/05)
17 . 16. 150
• •
A. A boundary fence is permitted, provided the fence
is located either on the perimeter easement line or not
more than five feet outside of (that is, toward the struc-
ture) and parallel to the perimeter easement line. In the
absence of an easement line, a boundary fence may be lo-
cated on the property line.
B. Driveways shall not cover more than twenty per
cent of the area of the setback in which they are located.
C. Uncovered parking areas are permitted in front or
side setbacks. However, such parking areas shall not ex-
ceed ten percent of the area of the setback in which they
are located and shall be located no closer than thirty
feet from any roadway easement.
D. Walkways, steps, mailboxes, and rubble wall of
three feet or less in height, and irrigation systems may
be permitted in any setback area.
E. Driveway entry pilasters, gates, trellis or arch-
way may be permitted at the driveway entry to a property.
F. Walls, retaining or otherwise, which do not ex-
ceed three feet in height and construction of which does
not require grading may be permitted along a driveway,
stairway or walkway.
G. Walls, not to exceed three feet in height, deter-
mined by the Planning Department and the Building Official
to be necessary to improve drainage or prevent slope ero-
sion and/or are necessary to support a drainage device
such as a swale, riprap, perforated pipes and similar
drainage devices, may be permitted in any setback, but not
in easements unless approved by the Association, provided
such construction does not constitute grading and does not
block any trails. Such' walls shall be screened from pub-
lic right-of-ways, easements and adjacent properties with
appropriate landscaping.
H. Barns, stables, pens, corrals, and other similar
holding facility may be located in the rear setback sub-
ject to the requirements of Section 17.16.200(A) of this
chapter.
I. Playhouses and playground equipment, subject to
the requirements of Section 17.16.200(L) of this chapter.
J. Turnout area subject to the requirements of Sec-
tion 17.16.200(D) of this chapter. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B
(part)), 2004: Ord. 287 §2, 2001; Ord. 239 §11(part),
1993) .
218 (Rolling Hills #4, 3/05)
(310) 544-6222
G�ofLt g oLtif S. CoiYLiYLi.Ll2Lt3 Og5„�,oiictLol2
JJ of c?ancfio _91[o1 (VEzzcies
ND. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
ROLLING HILLS
November 9, 2010
Dhirendra & Mridula Chaturvedi
6 Maverick Lane
Rolling Hills CA 90274
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chaturvedi:
CALIFORNIA
(310) 544-6766 FAX
Your neighbor at 9 Maverick Lane is requesting a license agreement to construct a motor court in
the easement adjacent to your property. A portion of this motor court will extend all the way to
the property line. Concerns were raised by the Board of Directors when this was discussed at the
November 4, 2010 meeting and the Board directed staff to notify the neighbors directly affected
by this construction for a second time and to send a copy of the map showing the proposed motor
court.
Please review the enclosed map. If you would like make a field visit with staff, please contact me
at the Association office and I will be happy to schedule a time for us to view the stakes for the
proposed motor court. This matter will be discussed at the November 18, 2010 Board of
Directors meeting and you are encouraged to attend this meeting and express any concerns you
may have.
Please feel welcome to contact me at the Association office with any questions, comments or
concerns you may have.
Sincerel
athryn Bishop
Architectural Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Spencer Karpf
Criss Gunderson, Architect
•
Ctty ol /Qo//ing Jh//
October 14, 2010
Mr. and Mrs. Spencer Karpf
14 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
INCORPORATE!:) JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 795, Request for a Site Plan Review at 8
Maverick Lane.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Karpf:
This is to inform you that the City Council at their October 11, 2010 meeting
received and filed the Planning Commission's decision in your application.
The approval is valid for two years, with the opportunity to request an up to
two-year extension. The request must be made in writing prior to the expiration
of the approval. The approval becomes null and void if work has not
commenced within the specified period of time.
Enclosed is a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2010-23, specifying the conditions of
approval set forth by the Planning Commission. The approval will not become
effective until you complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE
FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward (or hand deliver) 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
or
LAX Courthouse
11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-727-6142
Mon -Fri 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Include a check in the amount of $13.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each
additional page. (Please verify the fee, as it changes frequently).
Please make a cony of the Resolution for your files. The conditions of approval
must be copied onto the plans submitted to County or Willdan for review and
approval.
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
The City now offers two agencies for plan review, issuance of building and
grading permit, inspections and follow up; as in the past, the Los Angeles
County Building and Safety and for additional fee for expedited process Willdan
Consultants. If you wish to have Willdan process your plans, please let me know.
The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division or
Willdan to issue permits only after the Affidavit of Acceptance and the
Resolution are recorded and received by us and any conditions of the Resolution
required prior to issuance of building permits are met. As you go through the
development process, please be aware of the conditions of the Resolution, as
there are conditions that have to be met at different stages of the process.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerel
Yol, hta Schwartz
Pl ning Director
Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-23
PLAN FOR YOUR FILE
cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect (Cover letter only)
yy C� F
P'L►J NING cdhr,1`�iii S1oi (Iy�. 20 V x
o G t�i' l#) Go4i14d o 4,5 0
r.
Otk/1) Flo
cn
w
_ (5 U s-Gr-c:UNp
No �X�T1n1v �F'L�i cAUf'-Afar-.cUNP z
-t�tc f Lrcl=-r-( AC, iPr 1IFIEt> 15Y - a =
ct,,%t.1ll-41J1rf ,Acv z
- 4 (t-0 1Gi°'°TE97 FLU
U=
0 1+.4oi,4-ram all J I/. r A•1N
_ ' INO1 cp-"ej 12p cf�i 'mot 1)-a A
v
z=
•o
vi
a
rx ;
o�
w •°
U
�•
�4» -
A
z'
o
z
• •
RECORDING REQUESTED BY ANC
MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD.
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
JSE ONLY
THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE I ORE
RECORDATION.
ZONING CASE NO. 795
XX SITE PLAN REVIEW
I (We) the undersigned state
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
8 MAVERICK LANE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 26-A-SK), CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 795
XX SITE PLAN REVIEW
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
• •
See Attached Exhibit "A", RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. 2010-23
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
Personally
appeared
who 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.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary ( Seal)
1
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE AND
RELOCATE A POOL, CONSTRUCT A 5-FOOT HIGH WALL AND TWO NOT
TO EXCEED 30 INCHES HIGH WALLS, AND ENLARGE THE BUIDLING PAD
AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 795, ON A PROPERTY WITH A CONDITION
THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL. PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 8 MAVERICK LANE,
(LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA., (KARPF). PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Mr. Spencer Karpf duly filed an application with respect to real
property located at 8 Maverick Lane (Lot 1-MR), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan
Review to enlarge and relocate an existing pool and spa and to relocate and add several
walls, which will not exceed on the average 30 inches in height. In addition, a 5-foot
high wall for a distance of 10 feet is proposed in the side yard area. The existing pool
and spa of 616 square feet are proposed to be filled in and a new 808 square foot infinity
pool and spa constructed. As a result of moving of the walls, the building pad area will
increase by 1,789 square feet.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application at two field trip visits; September 14 and September
21, 2010 and at a regular meeting on September 21, 2010. 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 and his representative were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a site plan review
and a variance in Zoning Case No. 758 to demolish 3,385 square feet of the then existing
5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the
residence for a total of 7,103 square foot residence with 865 square foot garage and a
Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed
area of the net lot. There is a 1,643 square foot basement at the residence and an 800
square foot detached recreation room.
Section 4. Resolution No. 2008-18 for Zoning Case No. 758 includes a
condition that any further development on the property, including walls, must be
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The proposed walls,
which would contribute to an enlarged building pad area and the relocated and
enlarged pool, would not trigger exceedance of the City of Rolling Hills development
standard requirements. A site plan review application is required for the 5-foot high
wall.
Reso. 2010-23
ZC NO. 795
1
•
Cry aliell,.y Jh/h
September 22, 2010
Mr. Spencer Karpf
14 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 795, Request for a Site Plan Review, 8 Maverick
Lane
Dear Mr. Karpf:
This ,letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on
September 21, 2010 granting your request in Zoning Case No: 795. That action, accompanied
by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council
on Monday. October 11, 2010 at their regular meeting beginning at 7:30 PM. You or your
representative should be present to answer any questions the Council may'have.
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 (301 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.
Please review the conditions of the attached resolution. Should you have any objections to
any of the conditions, you could appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council.
If noappeals 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.
Following the City Council action, I will mail you instructions for recordation of the documents.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Yolar[a Schwartz
Planning Director
cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect (cover letter only)
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION. NO.2010-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW. TO ENLARGE AND
RELOCATE A POOL, CONSTRUCT A 5-FOOT HIGH WALL AND TWO NOT
TO EXCEED 30 INCHES HIGH WALLS, AN.D ENLARGE THE BUIDLING PAD
AREA IN 'ZONING CASE NO. '795, ON A. PROPERTY WITH A CONDITION
THAT. ANY • FURTHER. DEVELOPMENT. ` REQUIRES . PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL., PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 8 MAVERICK LANE,
(LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, • CA., . (KARPF). . PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT. FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
. QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE' CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1. Mr. Spencer Karpf duly filed an application with respect to real
property located at 8 Maverick Lane (Lot 1-MR), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan
Review to enlarge and relocate an existing pool and spa and to relocate and add several
walls, which :will not exceed on the average 30 inches in height. In addition, a 5-foot
high wall for a distance of 10 feet is proposed in the side yard area: The existing pool
and spa of 616 square feet are proposed to be filled in and a new 808 square foot infinity
pool and spa constructed. As a result of moving of the walls, the building pad area will
increase by 1,789 square feet.
Section 2. .The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application at two field trip visits; September 14 and September
21, 2010 and at a regular meeting on September 21, 2010. 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 and his representative were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a site plan review
and a variance in Zoning Case No. 758 to demolish 3,385 square feet of the then existing
5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the
residence for a total of 7,103 square foot residence with 865 square foot garage and a
Variance for. previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed
area of the net lot. There is a 1,643 square foot basement. at the residence and an 800
square foot detached recreation room.
Section 4. Resolution No. 2008-18 for Zoning Case No. 758 includes a
condition that any further development on the property, including walls, must be
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The proposed walls,
which would contribute to an enlarged building pad area and the relocated and
enlarged pool, would not trigger exceedance of the City of Rolling Hills development
standard requirements. A site plan review application is required for the 5-foot high
wall.
Reso. 2010-23
ZC NO. 795
September 21, 2010
Spencer L. Karpf
14 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Honorable Members of the
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills_
2 Portuguese Bend
Rolling Hills, CA 90274,
90274
Zoning Case 795
8 Maverick Lane
EE IVED
SEP 2 0 2010
-City of Rolling Hills
elf
Yolanta Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend -
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Anton Dahlerbruch
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend
Rolling Hills, CA
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Yolanta and Tony:
We would like to add one comment to the letter that we presented the Commission with
on September 14, 2010.
In that letter it was indicated that the increase in the pool size was approximately 172 sq.
ft. (The letter should have said 192 sq. ft.)
However, the reality is that when the removal of the existing pool's water feature is
considered, the net increase in the pool +water feature is only 92 square feet, a truly
trivial difference on this sized property, even without the increase in pad size
conternplated by the new retaining walls.
This is because whereas the existing pool has a 100 sq. ft. water feature, .the new pool
does not have a water feature - it is just the pool. When the artificial rock features of the
existing pool are thrown into the mix, it turns out that the new pool will actually take up
less space and therefore have Tess impact than the existing one with its water feature
and artificial rocks.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Sheila and Spencer Karpf
14 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
•
September 14, 2008
Sheila Xi Wang Karpf
Spencer L. Karpf
8 Maverick Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Honorable Members of the
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Erk.
SEP 1 ' 2010
City of Roiling Hills
By
Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
Re: Zoning Case No. 795
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Dahlerbruch and Ms.
Schwartz.
We would like to offer the following written testimony in support of our application to
enlarge and relocate an existing pool and spa and to relocate and add several walls.
1. The increase in the size of the pool and spa is trivial (approximately 170 sq. ft.)
The new pool will have several advantages over the existing one.
a. It will be located further from the closest neighboring property (Shoemaker).
It will not be visible to any other neighbor. The Shoemakers have indicated to
me that they support this project and will try to be in attendance at the hearing
to voice their support.
b. A large quantity of hardscape will be removed in conjunction with the
removal of the old pool including a large quantity of artificial rock formations.
This will leave the site with a more natural look.
c. The new pool will be much more in architectural harmony with the home
giving an overall more esthetic appearance to the development.
d. With the proposed pad addition of 1789 sq. ft., the overall pad coverage will
reduce by approximately 1.5% giving a more open, natural appearance.
e. The 170 increase in pool size represents only 10% of the increase in pad size.
This will result in a pad coverage reduction of approximately 1.5% giving a
more open, natural appearance to the entire development.
2. There are no adverse affects of the minor retaining walls that will increase the pad
size.
a. The walls will not exceed an average of 30". Normally, such small walls
would not even require Planning Commission approval and would be
approved over the counter. It is only because of a condition of approval on
the home that they require this approval process.
b. The wall in the front of the home will replace an existing wall of similar size.
The only difference is that it will push back a small distance into an already
graded (for a driveway) hillside. When complete, it will not even be
appearant that any change was made. Only one neighbor can even see this
retaining wall, and they see the existing one. This neighbor (Shoemaker),
who will have a somewhat "cleaner" view of a larger, more open pad,
supports this project.
c. The second wall, in the back and one side of the home, will also be of a very
minimal height, will be completely bidden by landscaping (as the
Commission will have seen on the site visit — the landscaping almost covers
the stakes showing the location of the wall) and will only be visible to five
neighbors (La Charite, Altman, Lay, Berenato, Mahmarian — the Shoemakers
will not be able to see this wall from their home and they have indicated
support of this project).
All five of these neighbors have either indicated that they are not opposed or
support the project. Four have provided me with written statements to this
effect and one (Altman) has indicated that I may so inform the Commission.
One neighbor (Lay) indicated that they do not support the request, but also do
not oppose it. That neighbor also indicated that landscaping already in place
"will soon block most of the views between our properties", and this includes
the proposed wall.
The written statements are attached.
d. These are very, very minor walls of the sort normally approved over the
counter without the need for Planning Commission approval. They will have
no adverse effect on any neighbors anyone but that will increase the
pad area by almost 1800 sq. ft. so as to allow for a very slightly larger pool
while still creating an increased feeling of openness.
Page 1 of 1
• •
skarpf@earthlink.net Mail Account
From: Carolyn Mahmarian [carolyn@califomiabeadin.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:07 AM
To: skarpf@earthlink.net
Subject: Retaining wall
We have no objection to the proposed retaining wall.
Dick and Carolyn Mahmarian
21 Caballeros
9/12/2010
• •
,a
• •
Page 1 of 1
skarpf@earthlink.net Mail Account
From: Molly Berenato [mollyberenato@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 6:22 PM
To: skarpf@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: 8 Maverick Retaining Wall
Spencer,
Just a short note confirming our conversation earlier today and
our willingness to support your application to the commission
for permission to build a retaining wall. REGARDS, Joe Berenato
(25 Caballeros Road).
From: "skarpf@earthlink.net" <skarpf@earthlink.net>
To: mollyberenato@yahoo.com
Cc: jberenato@ducommun.com
Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 1:11:56 PM
Subject: 8 Maverick Retaining Wall
Joseph -
Thanks for taking the time to chat with me regarding our retaining wall
application that will be before the Planning Commission.
I'm pleased that you feel you can support our application and appreciate
your taking the time to write a couple of lines to indicate this so I will
be able to present it to the Commission.
Thanks again,
Spencer Karpf
9/12/2010
i • • y
v
.-
Re: Retaining Wall
• •
Page 1 of 1
Re: Retaining Wall
From: Sandy La Charite <slacharite@cox.net>
To: skarpf@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Retaining Wall
Date: Sep 13, 2010 9:49 AM
Good Morning Spencer:
Ed and I have no issue with your installing, as you stated, a three foot
retaining wall which will be landscaped so that it's not visible to us from
our property.
Sandy and Ed La Charite
Original Message
From: <skarpf@earthlink.net>
To: <slacharite@cox.net>; <laltman@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:08 PM
Subject: Retaining Wall
> Liz, Sandy, Ed and Lou -
> Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this a.m. to review our plans
> for
> adding a retaining wall at the perimiter of our pad.
> I appreciate your willingness to send a brief note that I can present to
> the
> Planning Commission toshow the members that you have no opposition to
> what
> we are planning.
> I also enjoyed the neighborly chat part of the visit.
> Sincerely,
> Spencer
http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/printable jsp?msgid=8397&x=-1261217844 9/13/2010
• •
skarpf@earthlink.net Mail Account
From: Alien Lay [allenlay@cox.net]
Sent Wednesday, September 08, 201010:02 PM
To: skarpf@earthlink.netskarpf@earthlink.net
Cc: Sandy LaCharite; YS@cityof h.net; Dick Mahmarian
Subject: Re: 8 Maveric Project
Hi Spencer, I have never allowed political differences to get in the way of friendship
and don't expect to start at this point in my life. However, when in a political debate,
I have tried to focus on the issues and not on the individual. I think it is good advice
for anyone. Tom & Godfrey have served this community with distinction for many years and
they deserve the respect of all of us whether you agree with them or not. I hope that any
campaign waged in the coming months focuses on differences in views, approaches to
management and issues, and does not try to malign individuals as we so often see in so
many campaigns around the state and nation.
With respect to your request, I cannot support a retaining wall around substantially all
•of the exterior of your lot merely for the purpose of extending the pad. The impact on
the area is the pad itself not the house upon it. We will not oppose your application to
the planning commission but please make it clear, if asked, that we do not support your
request, but are simply leaving the Planning Commission to make their decision. We will
not attend the public hearing as we are out of town. Also, I'm sure you recognize that I
will recuse myself from the discussion and the vote on whatever decision from the Planning
Commission comes before the Council, due to my ownership of an adjacent property. I am
copying our Planning Director, Yolanta Schwartz so she will be aware that we are not
opposing your application.
I think the neighbors most impacted by your request are the Mahmarians at 21 Caballeros
and the LaCharite's at 23 Caballeros. They look more directly at the edge of your pad
than do we. I have copied them on this response so you may wish to talk to them directly.
In any event the Catalina Cherry trees between our properties will soon block most of the
views between our properties.
Please note that my wife's name is Dorothy and her friends call her Dottie, but Dot is
not acceptable to her so be forewarned.
Please feel free to call me at any time. The contractor who did your demolition did a
fine job managing the noise and dust during the project. Thanks!
Allen
S
Yo.i nta Schwartz
•
City oli21l,.g.�CI.PG
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO..2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
PUBLIC HEARING AND FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
August 18, 2010
Mr. Spencer Karpf
14 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 795, Request for a Site Plan Review, 8 Maverick
The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to your property to view a silhouette of
the proposed project on Tuesday. September 14. 2010 at about 8:00 a.m.
The Planning Commission schedule is to visit another property beginning at 7:30 a.m.
and then proceed to your site.
Your neighbors will be notified of this field trip. The staking must be completed a
minimum of 7 days prior to the field visit and must stay up until the project approval
process is completed, which includes City Council review.
The owner and/or representative must be present to answer any questions regarding the
proposal. The project must be staked as follows:
• A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached
guidelines must be prepared for the pool. spa. and
walls:
• Stake or delineate on the ground the front setback
line;
• Show the heights of the proposed walls in different
locations
After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on
Tuesday. September 21. 2010. at 6:30 PM at City Hall, at which time the Commission will
further discuss and deliberate your proposal.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sin►e-' I ,
P nning Director
cc:
Criss Gunderson, Architect
Printed on Recycled Paper
50TH ANNIVERSARY
1957 - 2007
Citv
_r.) !un,RY 24, 1957
UO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-72F0
SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
A silhouette of proposed construction must be erected the week preceding the designated
Planning Commission or City Council meeting/field trip.
Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable.
Bracing should be provided.
Lumber, wire or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves.
Flags in close proximity to each other must be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the
visualization of the proposed construction.
Property lines, setback lines and easement lines must be staked along the areas of
construction. 21/2 - 3' high wooden stakes must be used to delineate the lines. Such stakes must
be flagged and marked on their sides:
• Property line ( red or pink flag)
• Setback line (green flag)
• Easement line (yellow flag)
and remain in the ground throughout the entire review and approval process as well as
during the entire construction process, when required by the Commission.
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
PLAN
® Printed on Recycled Paper