The URL can be used to link to this page

393, Addition of 500 SF to SFR and , CorrespondenceMRS. MARGARET HAUEISEN 6 EASTFIELD DR. ROLLING HILLS, CA. 90274 FEBRUARY 7, 1995 BANK OF AMERICA TERRY W. BABBITT 150 LONG BEACH BLVD. 3RD. FLOOR LONG BEACH, CA. 90802 By R@EI1WE FEB 00 i City 0Y Roiling Hills DEAR MS. BABBITT, I DO NOT WISH TO RENEW THE LETTER OF CREDIT GIVEN TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, OR THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 EASTFIELD DR. ROLLING HILLS, CA. I HAVE SATISFIED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE CANCEL THE LETTER OF CREDIT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY, • MARGARET A. HAUEISEN CC: THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MS. LOLA UNGER LAW OFFICE OF BAKER & BURTON KENT BURTON i Bank of America International Trade Bank #2621 333 S. Beaudry Avenue, 19th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 By February 02, 1995 11E1P7N FEB 0 1995 City Of Rolling Hills NOTICE OF NON -RENEWAL City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Road Rolling Hills CA 90274 Attn: Craig Nealis City Manager Subject: Standby Letter of Credit No. LASB-213889 Applicant: Margaret Haueisen Pursuant to the provisions of the above -referenced Letter of Credit, we hereby give you notice that we will not renew the Letter of Credit and that it will expire on May 15, 1995. Please be guided accordingly. Sincerely, OtAJAJ arbl B. Gandia Authorized Officer (213) 345-6630 NOTE: A copy of the original Letter of Credit is enclosed for your ready reference. cc: Terry Babbit #1418 Michael Wisemann #1592 Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association Place: a Bank c A,veric.. . ' TRADE FINANCE. SHjZVICE8``#6655i,I'9350 FLAIR DRIVE, 5TH FLOOR EL MONTE,. CALIFORNIA 91731 BANK RECORD Cable Address; . BankA{rierica` This tefers to our preliminary teletransrriission advice of this credit." IRREVOCABLE . LETTER OF CREDIT NO.; DATE OF ISSUE; ADVISING BANK '...- :STANDBY'• LASB-313889 NAY8, 1991 REFERENCE NO.: . APPLICANT • CHARLES' HAMMEN MARGARET 'HAUEISEN. • • 28879 CREST RIDGE ROAD RANCHO PAL03 YBRD®,:CA BENEFICIARY CITY OF ROLLING HILLS #2 PORTUGUESE ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 ATTN: CRAIG NEALIB CITY MANAGER DATE AND PLACE OF EXPIRY AMOUNT 90274 MAY 15, 1992 • U.S. $45,310.00 (FORTY FIVE THOUSAND , ,'AT THIS OFFICE IN EL MONTE THREE HUNDRED TEN AND.00/100.. U.S.DOLLARS) ,.W Credit available with BANK OF AMERICA N.T. A S.A., EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA' by L Jsight payment 0 deferred payment n acceptance LI negotiation against presentation of the documents detailed below and your draft(s) at SIQIgT = drawn on US DOCUMENTS REQUIRED: A STATEMENT ON Le,Y,AanjAD OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SIGNED BY PURPORTED AUTHORIZED AGENT CERTIFYING THAT CHARLES AND MARGARET HAUEISEN HAVE FAILED TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED UNDER RESOLUTION #91-2 IN MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE #393, APPROVED BY THE ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 9, 1991. SPECIAL INSTRUCTI0N3= THIS LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE VALID UNTIL MAY 15, 1992 'AEI SHALL THEREAFTER' BE ArrapiuTMALLY RENEWED FOR A ONE YEAR UPON SUCH DATE AND UPON EACH ANNIVERSARY '. OF SUCH DATE, UNLESS AT LEAST SIXTY (60) D S PRIOR TO SUCH DATE OR EACH ANNIVERSARY OF SUCH DATE WE NOTIFY YOU IN WRITI ;Y r:GISTERED MAIL, THAT WE ELECT NOT TO RENEW THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IN WHICH CASE YOU MAY DRAW HEREUNDER FOR•THE BALANCE AVAILABLE UNDER THE LETTER OF CREDIT. * * * * * * * * * * * * * We hereby issue this Documentary Credit in your favour. It is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1983 revision, ICC Publication No. 400, and engages us in accordance with the terms thereof. The number and the date of the credit and the name of our bank must be quoted on all drafts required. If the credit is available by negotiation,' each presentation must be noted on the reverse of this advice by the bank where the credit is available All documents to be forwarded in one vet, by airmail, unless otherwise stated above. N oti g bank charges, if any, are for account of beneficiary. The advising b itp+equested to notify the credit to the benefici lei out adding their confirmation. This document consistsytr- �~ of signed page(s) AUTHORIZED COUNTERSIGNATURE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Please examine this instrument carefully. If you are unable to comply with the terms or conditions, please communicate with your buyer to arrange for an amendment. This procedure will facilitate prompt handling when documents are presented. FX•1311 3-87 CLASSIFICATION -CONFIDENTIAL KENT BURTON BRAD N. BAKER PAUL HORGAN • s iii?\jl�c�g�v� LAW OFFICES BAKER AND BURTON MAR 2 1994 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 515 PIER AVENUE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254-3889 By --------------- ,.,w (310) 376-9893 FAX (310) 376-7483 March 16, 1994 LONG BEACH OFFICE 215 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD SUITE 306 LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90802-3165 (310) 495-9553 FAX (310) 436-3221 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Ms. Lola Ungar, Principal Planner Re Our Clients: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen Property Address: 6 Eastfield Drive (the "Property") Dear Ms. Ungar: Pursuant to your request, I am writing to confirm that my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen, will "repair and replace the existing doorway between the garage and basement with similar block wall materials as shown on the original approved plans." As indicated in your letter of December 13, 1993, "Completion of this action would solve this situation and lead to the issuance of the final permit for occupancy." Please note that the enclosure of this doorway is being done under protest, and that Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen reserve all of their rights with regard to this matter. The enclosure of the doorway access is not to be construed as a waiver of any of said rights; rather, it is simply the only practical manner in which they can proceed at this time, in order to be able to obtain the final permit for occupancy. As the City knows, the other two "solutions" proposed in your December 13, 1993 letter are not solutions at all. The first would not only delay the issuance of the final permit for an indeterminable period of time, but also would result in merely rehashing an issue with the Planning Commission, which, for reasons unknown to us, is intransigent in its opposition to the doorway access. The second proposed solution would require the Haueisens to reduce the size of their garage door to an opening not to exceed three feet by six feet eight inches, an opening a bit too small to accommodate the approved use of vehicle storage. We would also like to note that the potential solutions of: (a) employing panic hardware; and (b) allowing the Haueisens to appeal the denial of such an access were previously eliminated as options by the City. • • City of Rolling Hills Attn: Ms. Lola Ungar March 16, 1994 Page.2 Unfortunately, this entire matter has taken on negative inertia, which has detrimented all involved. Rather than being rewarded and appreciated for their contributions to the beauty and tax base of Rolling Hills, Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen feel they are being treated unfairly and in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Nonetheless,the expense and energy that this matterhas unfortunately cost need to be stopped. As such, Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen have decided to accept the City's conditions at this time, but to retain their rights to readdress this issue at a later date. Hopefully, this will enable the final permit to be issued, two very fine people to be assimilated into a new neighborhood and city, and more important matters to be addressed by all concerned. Sincerely, BAKER & BURTON A Profe.s-nal Corporation NT -B I RTON Attorney at Law /j lm c: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Ci1y o`RollinS December 13, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen c/o DOUBLETREE HOTEL 2800 Via Cabrillo Marina San Pedro, CA 90731 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL DOORWAY ACCESS FROM SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen: Please be advised that the subject doorway is considered a major modification to the existing approved plans as defined in Paragraph B, Section 6 of Resolution No. 91-2, dated March 9, 1991 which prohibits doorway access from the subterranean garage to the residential structure. As you know, your construction plans do not include the doorway access. At the November 16, 1993 meeting, in a staff item to the Planning Commission (not a formal public hearing), we reported our intention, in the interest of health and safety for the occupants, to approve a one -hour fire -rated emergency exit door at the east wall of the basement with a self -closing door operator at the request of the applicants and concurrence of County Building and Safety. The Planning Commission felt that this violated Condition B of Resolution No. 91-2 and could not be approved by staff under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. We discussed the matter with your attorney, Mr. Kurt Burton, who was most cordial and determined to pursue a suitable solution. In that light, staff has reviewed the case and come up with the following options for your consideration: 1. Repair and replace the existing doorway between the garage and basement with similar block wall materials that were shown on the original approved plans. Completion of this action would solve this situation and lead to issuance of the final permit for occupancy. as Printed on Recycled Raper. PAGE 2 2. Seek a Site Plan Review Modification to the original approved plans for doorway access between garage and basement that requires an application and fee for a discretionary public hearing before the Planning Commission. This action would delay issuance of the final permit for occupancy until such time that the public hearing(s) and possible appeals are concluded. 3. Revise plans to include standard basement door access to environment as described in the Definition Section of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 17.12.020: "...Basements may have one standard door opening not to exceed three feet (3') by six feet, eight inches (6'8") for ingress/egress to the exterior." This action would comply with the Municipal Code, require only ministerial action (staff approval over the counter), and would lead to issuance of the final permit for occupancy. We hope that these options are helpful in determining your chosen course to resolve this matter. Feel free to call me if you have any further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, (2PAL LOLA UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Rafael Bernal, Senior Building Engineering Inspector Mr. Richard Linde, Architect Mr. Kent Burton, Attorney • City ol Rolling Jh// November 29, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen c/o DOUBLETREE HOTEL 2800 Via Cabrillo Marina San Pedro, CA 90731 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL DOORWAY ACCESS FROM SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 6. EASTFIELD DRIVE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen: At the November 16, 1993 meeting of the Planning Commission, staff reported that at the request of the applicants and concurrence of County Building and Safety, the City in the interest of health and safety for the occupants, intended to approve a one -hour fire -rated emergency exit door at the east wall of the basement with a self - closing door operator at 6 Eastfield Drive. Instead, the Planning Commission directed staff to inform you that the emergency door will not be permitted from the basement to the garage, but, the Commission will consider a modification application to consider an emergency exit door from the basement to the external environment. Please consider this letter a formal request by the City of Rolling Hills for you to revise plans and apply for Site Plan Review modification (enclosed). We will be happy to assist you in organizing the submittal requirements. You should note that occupancy of the residence is not permitted until finalled by the Building Official. Feel free to call me if you have any further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, LOLA UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER Enclosure: Site Plan Review Application Form cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Rafael Bernal, Senior Building Engineering Inspector Mr. Richard Linde, Architect ®Printed on Recycled Paper. OC T-26-9.. TUE 10 :39 orr COB • • RICHARD M. LIND{E AND ASSOCIATES, INC. e. I. e. architect 2200 AMAPOLA COURT, SUITE 200 • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA S0501 • (310) 320-8062 October 26, 1993 93-057 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Att: Lola Unger - Principal Planner Ref: 6 Eastfield Drive Easement Exit Door ( East End) Dear bola: This letter is to express our opinion and'recommendati.on of a need for a second emergency exit in the existing basement area of this residence. We suggest a one -hour fire -rated emergency exit door at the east wall of the basement with a self -closing door operator. The door should swing in the direction of egress and should be installed with panic hardware. The door will only be operable with the use of a key from the garage into the basement area. After physically reviewing the 3,257 S.F. basement area, it is our opinion that this exit door should remain not only to satisfy the requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code but also for the health and safety of the occupants. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please calll our office, RML:g1I Richard M. Linde 011�c Q U Sc 6rtll ;4r‘ ° ;t 016_ Li,k,S'-Q 0-c=1,9_6(qs, 3303 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE For purposes of this section, basements and occupied roofs shall be provided with exits as required for stories.. ---- EXCEPTIONS: Occupied roofs on Group R, Division 3 Occupancies may have one exit if such occupied areas are less than 500 square feet and are located no higher than immediately above the second story. Floors complying with the provisions for mezzanines as specified in Section 1717 shall be provided with exits as specified therein. The second story shall be provided with not less than two exits when the occu- pant load is 10 or more. Occupants on floors above the second story and in base- ments shall have access to not less than two separate exits from the floor or basement. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Two or more dwelling units on the second story or in a base- ment may have access to only one common exit when the total occupant load served by that exit does not exceed 10. 2. Except as provided in Table No. 33-A, only one exit need be provided from the second floor or a basement within an individual dwelling unit or a Group R, Division 3 congregate residence. 3. When the third floor within an individual dwelling unit or a Group R, Division 3 congregate residence does not exceed 500 square feet, only one exit need be pro- vidbd from that floor. 4. Floors and basements used exclusively for service of the building may have one exit. For the purposes of this exception, storage rooms, laundry rooms, maintenance offices and similar uses shall not be considered as providing service to the building. 5. Storage rooms, laundry rooms and maintenance offices not exceeding 300 square feet in floor area may be provided with only one exit. 6. Elevator lobbies may have one exit provided the use of such exit does not require keys, tools, special knowledge or effort. For special requirements see the following sections: Group A, Section 3317; Group E, Section 3318; Group H, Section 3319; Group I, Section 3320; Rooms Containing Fuel -fired Equipment and Cellulose Nitrate Handling Rooms, Section 3321; Reviewing Stands, Grandstands and Bleachers, Section 3322; Laboratories, Sections 702 (c) and 802 (d); and Open Parking Garages, Section 709 (g). For stage exits, see Section 3903 (f). Every story or portion thereof having an occupant load of 501 to 1,000 shall not have less than three exits. Every story or portion thereof having an occupant load of 1,001 or more shall not have less than four exits. The number of exits required from any story of a building shall be determined by using the occupant load of that story plus the percentages of the occupant loads of floors which exit into the level under consideration as follows: 1. Fifty percent of the occupant load in the first adjacent story above and the first adjacent story below, when a story below exits through the level under consider- ation. 2. Twenty-five percent of the occupant load in the story immediately beyond the first adjacent story. 630 00 h City ol leotting September 14, 1992 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueipen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274: (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen: We have consulted with the Assistant City Attorney and determined that, as previously stated in our letter of June 16, 1992 (attached), the new landscape plan will require Variances to permit the construction of a retaining wall in the front and side yard setbacks, a pool in the front yard setback, and fountain in the front yard setback. (Reference Sections 17.08.230, 17.08.260, and 17.28.022 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (attached)). If you wish to make application for the Variances, I would be most happy to provide the proper forms and assist you in organizing the submittal requirements. Feel free to call me if you have any further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, LOLA UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Ms. Robin Benezra Printed on Recycled Paper. Margaret A. Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Rd. Rancho P.V.,Ca. 902724 September 10, 1991 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Attn. Lola Unger, Planner Ref: Basement for new residence - 6 Eastfield Dr. Dear Mrs. Unger, This letter, as requested by you, is to confirm that we have no intentions of using the basement area for habitable space. as per Section 409 of the uniform building code, this space is for storage or utility purposes. Sincerely Margare A, Haueisen CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Approved PLANNING C# OMISSION /1/44 ow4/ • Ci1y o//eo eting JhfI? August 31, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL DOORWAY ACCESS FROM SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen: It has come to the attention of the City that there is doorway access from the subterranean garage to the residential structure at 6 Eastfield Drive. Paragraph B, Section 6 of Resolution No. 91-2, dated March 9, 1991 (attached) prohibits doorway access from the subterranean garage to the residential structure and construction plans do not include the doorway access. Your representatives Mr. Jack Rode and Mr. Richard Linde were present on February 19, 1991 when the project was approved by the Planning Commission. The paragraph was included in the resolution to prevent possible garage conversion. As stated in Paragraph H, Section 6 of the resolution, any further modification to the development plans approved by the Planning Commission will require you to file an application for that modification and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. If you wish to make application for a modification, we would be most happy to provide the proper forms and assist you in organizing the submittal requirements. You should note that occupancy of the residence is not permitted until finalled by the Building Official. Printed on Recycled Peoer. PAGE 2 Feel free to call me if you have any further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Q Z4 LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Rafael Bernal, Senior Building Engineering Inspector Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 91-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 393 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen with respect to real property located at 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot No. 62-EF) requesting a second modification to the previously approved site plan to allow for the construction of a subterranean garage instead of a detached above -grade garage. Section 2. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the original application for site plan review on July 8, 1989 pursuant to Resolution No. 89-15. The first modification to the site plan was approved by the Commission on November 3, 1990 as Resolution No. 90-34 along with a variance to the twenty percent (20%) side yard requirement for construction of a driveway in the side yard. This second modification is to allow for the construction of a subterranean garage and the deletion of a previously approved detached above -grade garage. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a second modification to the site plan on January 15, 1991 and February 19, 1991, and conducted a field trip on February 16, 1991. Section 4. Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent modification after a site plan review application has been approved. Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed including additions or deletions, may be considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or conditions shall be in the same manner as set forth in Sec- tions 17.32.030 and 17.34.040 of the Municipal•Code. of fact: Section 5. The Commission makes the following findings A. The proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density resi- dential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project con- forms to the Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 45,798 square feet. The proposed residential structure and garages will have 9,146 square feet which constitutes approximately 19% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20% lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and stable will be 15,951 square feet which equals 34.8% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum structural lot coverage requirement. The total pad coverage will be approximately 37%. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feas- ible, the natural topographical features of the lot by being constructed on the existing building pad. The construction of the subterranean garage will be less visibly intrusive when the project is viewed from Eastfield Drive than the previously approved above -grade detached garage. C. The project follows the natural contours of the site described in paragraph B, above. Grading and excavation is limited to the existing building pad area and soil displacement caused by construction of the subterranean garage will be placed back against and above the structure so as to integrate the structure into the natural contours of the site. D. To the maximum extent possible, native vegetation will be preserved and enhanced by conditions _ attached hereto requiring mature native plants to be planted so as to screen the project from Eastfield Drive. E. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot in that the reconstruction will occur within the existing building pad area. F. Although the Development Plan specifies a rela- . tively large residential structure, the project"is harmonious in scale and mass for the site and in 910306 t j 1680436 (1) -2- • . relation to neighboring residential structures. The proposed structure is 60 feet from the nearest residence. G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles in that the driveway remains in its existing location. H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing Section, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a second modification to the approved site plan in Zoning Case No. 393 to permit an attached subterranean garage with vehicular access, as indicated on the development plan attached hereto and incorpor- ated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. No further structures shall be permitted to be constructed on the site and no further addition to those structures shall be permitted once construc- tion of the improvements specified on Exhibit A is complete. B. The subterranean garage shall abut, but not pro- vide access to the residential structure on the site by way of a doorway or other passageway. C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee before the applicant receives a grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review, along with related geology, soils and hydrology reports. This grading plan must conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, which shall forward its recommenda- tions for approval or revision to the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for. approval prior to the issuance of any grading and 910306 lj 1650436 (1) - 3 - • • building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consis- tent with the rural character of the community. The landscape plan shall provide that mature native shrubs or shrubs that are compatible with the rural character of the community be planted between Eastfield Drive and the proposed garage, which shrubs shall be maintained at a height sufficient to, but not any higher than necessary to, screen the top of the garage when viewed from Eastfield Drive. F. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the landscaping plus 15% shall be required to be posted with the City prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City after the City Manager (or the Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, if appointed to act for this purpose in the place of the City Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed pur- suant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. G. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to the development plan approved with this site plan review. H. Any further modification to the development plans approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of. an application for modification of the development plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to; Section 17.43.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal - Code. I. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of all conditions pursuant to Sec- tion 17.32.087 or this site plan review approval shall not be effective. J. All conditions of this modification must be com- plied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. 910306 lj 1680436 (1.) - 4 - Section 7. The terms and conditions of Resolution No. 89-15, adopted on July 8, 1989, and Resolution No. 90-34, adopted on November 3, 1990, along with the approved variance to the twenty percent (20%) side yard coverage requirement shall remain and be in full force and effect except for any provision therein which conflicts with the provisions of this Resolution. 1991. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of March, Allan Roberts, Chairman ATTEST:/7/ hi/ atAl Diane lawyer, De uty City Clerk t 910306 tj 1680436 (1) -5- • The foregoing Resolution No. 91-2 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVEp-�"STTE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUBTERRANEAN `GARAGE AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IN' ZONING CASE.NO. 393 was app140ed •and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 9, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, HankThdp,,,Lay and Raine; Chairman Roberts. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • t;? 0.4.14 Deputy Ctty Clerk F"1 RICHARD IVI. LIRl& AND ASSOCIATES, •C. a.. i. a. architect 1 ._1 2200 AMAPOLA COURT, SUITE 200 • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90501 • 1213] 320-a05� PROJECT: t6 EASTFIELD DRIVE HAUEISEN RESIDENCE REVISED RETAINING WALL Date: 8-5-93 Job Number 590q Vok HF>U�EN PI.ST Cpf- PER EauTI1-Ir 11 1' U t-'\r • j V CaP�R,AG�E SOUTH ELEVATION Distributiort CO!-4C. `ipLt r - FP.C,a G -VENFEr-.TO P-7C.}-4 4II HIGH TI` S r,t42.p,a_ FPLP l-� �Padv R+P�-PAL GI✓k. Wes- J AUG 10. 1993 CITY OF -ROLLING HILLS By MIRRN1101.1.1toene. SHEET I OF I BY: TITLE • • August 9, 1993 Lola Unger Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Lola, AUG 111993 arY OF ROLLING HILLS This letter is in regards to the residence under construction at #6 Eastfield Dr. As I explained to you previously we are having trouble with the high degree of moisture in the plywood subfloor (15%-19%). The hard- wood floor contractor will not install the wood floor until the moisture is down to a maximum of eleven percent. To accomplish this it will be necessary to have the heating system operational in the house. We are asking you to please release the electrical and gas utilities so that the heating system can be made operational with the understanding and guarantee that Mr. and Mrs. Haeuisen will not occupy the residence until all permits and inspections have been signed off and completed and the house is released for occupancy. Thank you Charles H. - isen Robin Benezra 6541 Via Lorenzo Rancho Palos Verde California 90274 July 3, 1992 Ms. Lola Ungar City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Ms. Ungar, In response to your letter dated June 16, 1992 to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen regarding the landscape design at #6 Eastfield Drive, I am submitting a revised schematic landscape plan with sections and elevations of the areas in question. The water element at the southwest corner of the property could not be interpreted as a "structure" as outlined in Section 17.28.022. The small cascade follows the grade of the slope stepping down with P.V. stone ledges or steps no more than 6" high. Boulders found on the site will anchor the cascade on either side but they will be set into the slope so a maximum of half their height is exposed. Many of these boulder clusters will punctuate the slope and front garden planting areas. Please refer to Detail A for a section of this area. The small water element at the entryway cannot be considered a structure as defined in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as it is also at grade level with no "structure" rising above the ground plane. As seen in Detail C, the pool of water is 4 feet in diameter and flush with the step down sitting area at an elevation of 104.0 feet. The side yard at the west side of the property presents a slope management problem. The driveway down to the lower garage has substantially cut into the existing hill. It will require a retaining wall in excess of 4 feet and will o. 14. need to be engineered. This wall is necessary to protect the owner of this project and the owner of the property above from any erosion to the steep slope. Unfortunately, this problem was never addressed in the orginal site plans that were submitted. It is now clear that a variance will be needed to construct this wall and we intend to move in that direction. Thank you for your help in this matter and for taking the time to review these plans. I hope the revisions and present design are in accordance with the municipal code as it is generally interpreted. Please contact me if you have any further questions or problems. Sincerely, Robin Benezra, ASLA to• ROBIN BENEZRA 6541 VIA LORENZO RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA.90274 (310) 833-5808 July 3, 1992 Rolling Hills Community Association Architectual Committee Re: Minutes of 6-9-92 Haueisen Residence With regard to the comments made to the schematic design submitted for the Haueisen residence at #6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, please note that the plan is a conceptual design and not a construction document. We are not addressing architectural issues that have already been discussed but rather, are attempting to show hardscape surfaces and their relationship to the landscape and building. At this time we would like to submit a revised schematic plan with sections along with responses to the comments made in the minutes. Item 1: The crib wall was approved by the Association when the architectural drawings were submitted for approval. We intend to plant the wall and irrigate it so it becomes a wall of greenery blending in with the slope. At the top of the wall will be Plumbago auriculata (Cape Plumbago)to cascade over the top and on the face will be Ficus repens, a vigorous vine that will completely cover the wall and possibly the garage itself. This will look much better than a 12 foot block retaining wall with nothing growing on it. Item 2: A sample of the driveway paver is enclosed. Item 3: The entry gate has been omitted from the plan. Please see the attached Section and Elevation sheet for the pilaster elevation. This is not a construction drawing. Item 4: The guard rail at the garage roof deck was approved when the architectural drawings were submitted. The rail should be at the edge of the deck to protect against a dangerous condition and is dictated by the Los Angeles County code of building and safety. If the Association wants to change their ruling on this they will have to take full responsibility and liability for any accidents 4. Ih occurring due to this change. The owner would then submit a "Hold Harmless" clause to the Association for allowing this potentially life threatening condition. With respect to the landscape in this area, we plan to screen the railing with Cape Plumbago which will grow through the railing at 3 to 4 feet high and cascade over the top of the garage. Item 5: The cooking area has been purposefully sunk into the hillside so that the cooking appliances will only rise above the patio level 18"-24". A stone bench and raised planters have been designed to screen the cooking area from the house. A screen of shrubs that grows 4'-5' high follows the top edge of the slope to screen this area from the street. This primary screen is augmented by a secondary screen of fruit trees at the base of the slope that will be 12'-15' tall and a tertiary screen of California Pepper trees at the easement line that will grow 30'-35' tall. In 3 to 5 years, there will be virtually no view to the patio area from the street. We hope that this clarifies any questions you might have regarding the conceptual design of this landscape project. We look forward to proceeding with final construction plans in the near future. Sincerely, Robin Benezra, ASLA Representative for Mr.and Mrs. Charles Haueisen ROBIN EENEZR A 6541 VIA LORENZO RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA.9O274 (310) 833-5808 July 3, 1992 Rolling Hills Community Association Landscape Committee Re: Minutes of 6-10-92 Haueisen Residence With regard to the comments made to the schematic design submitted for the Haueisen residence, 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, please note that the plan is a conceptual design and not a planting plan. The final planting plan cannot be submitted until we receive approval for the schematic design from the Landscape committee, the Architectural committee and the Planning Commission. However, at this time we would like to submit a revised schematic plan with sections along with our responses to the comments made in the minutes. Item 1: The guard rail at the garage deck will be 36" high and has been approved by the architectural committee and the County building department. The plant suggested, Ligustrum texanum, will grow 9 to 12 feet high and will obstruct the owner's view out the master bedroom. In order to keep this plant the same height as the rail it would have to be trimmed a minimum of once a month. This would be impractical and potentially dangerous since there is a 12 foot drop at the outside edge of the rail. We would like to plant something that will not only screen the rail but also soften the top edge of the garage and not require constant maintenance. We would prefer to use plumbago or lantana camara or Bougainvillea to cascade through the rail over the edge of the garage deck. Item 2: The slope surrounding the house will be planted with a few varietes of Ceanothus along with other native shrubs and erosion reducing groundcovers. At the top of the slope will be Ceanothus 'Joyce Coulter' which grows to 5 foot and will provide screening of the patio and cooking area from the street. At the bottom of the slope Ceanothus 'Carmel Creeper' and 'Yankee Point' will tumble over the boulders at the base. Please see enclosed plan for section of slope. gib • SO Item 3: The hydroseed ground cover under the orchard and around the herb garden will be an "Erosion control and Meadow Mix" manufactured by Stover Seed Company, Los Angeles. It contains 61% Creeping Red Fescue, 15% Reliant Hard Fescue and 4% California wildflower mix. This should look fairly natural and beautiful in the spring. Item 4: The water element in the front at the southwest corner will be a quiet cascade using boulders from the site set into the slope with steps of P.V. stone between. Please refer to the section attached to the schemative plan. The cluster of trees around it will be Gingko biloba (Maidenhair tree) with some Agonis flexuosa (Peppermint tree) dotting the rest of the slope. Along the stream bed will be Woodwardia ferns, Liriope, Carex, Geranium sanguineum, and Aquilegia formosa. A groundcover such as vinca minor will be planted on the slope and jute netting will be used where necessary. Item 5: No lighting has been specified at this time. The committee's comments have been noted. We hope that this clarifies any questions you might have regarding the conceptual design of this landscape project. We look forward to progressing to the final plans in the .. near future. Sincerely, Robin Benezra, ASLA Representative for Mr.and Mrs. Charles Haueisen M M Ci4 o/l2Pfiny JUL July 18, 1991 Mrs. Margaret Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 SUBJECT: 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE Dear Mrs. Haueisen: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Thank you for your letter of July 15, 1991 regarding a request to modify the approved landscaping plans. The City appreciates your concerns for your property as well as the residents. Screening the view of the construction site on this heavily travelled street would be an asset. Therefore, the City has no objection to the immediate planting of the six to nine specimen pepper trees in the area you designated in your drawings. Feel free to call me if you have any further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, PRINCIPAL PLANNER • City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Att: Craig Nealis, City Manager Re: #6 Eastfield Road, Rolling Hills Dear Craig: July 15, 1991 IgSPIC JUL 16 1991 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By...»-...••••..w••M......M.•M•.M••MMIR One of the requests/conditions made by the Planning Commission for the site plan approval was to screen the underground garage from the street with landscaping. I am already aware of the residents concerns over the impact due to grading and construction on such a visible site. Instead of waiting fifteen months to begin the landscaping operation with fifteen gallon pepper trees as approved, I would like to plant six to nine specimen trees immediately as shown on the proposed modification to the approved landscaping plan. The proposed location of the specimen pepper trees will screen the view of the construction site from the street. I am sure all of the residents that enter the Eastfield gate will appreciate the screening effort. The grading operation will soon make it impossible to plant the specimen trees, therefore a prompt response to this request would be appreciated. Thank you. Margaret Haueisen ie"f3 77-o /6 7 879 Afk-77c1-3000 PAZ Enclosed: 4 copies a) approved landscaping plan (at modification location) b) approved plant index c) proposed modification • opeoPFnS Baer June 16, 1992 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAL ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE DESIGN AT 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 62-EF) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen: It has come to the attention of the Planning Departmentstaff that the landscape design proposed for the subject site does not comply with the City Zoning Code in that a waterfall, sitting area, and garden walls are proposed for the front yard setback and garden walls are proposed for the side yard setback. Section 17.28.022 Structures permitted in yards of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code states that "A. Required yards shall be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground up of any structure" with certain exceptions (attached). Note that Section 17.16.060 Front vard reads, "Every lot or parcel in zone RA-S shall have a front yard of not less than fifty feet, measured horizontally from the front easement line." Also, Section 17.16.070 Side yards says, "B. Every lot or parcel in the RAS-1 zone shall have side yards of not less than twenty feet." In order for you to comply with current code requirements and the Site Plan approved by the Planning Commission, kindly revise your landscape design plans and submit a copy to the Planning Department at the same time you resubmit to the Rolling Hills Community Association Landscape Committee. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Ms. Robin Benezra, ASLA •-••• • IV - 'I• •►.• •.• 1 • •• ..M• •• M41. H• . aft •r •••. .•. •a..i...Often. . Alb .— • . . 1.... • •..•. .• • 17.14.040-•17.16.060 17.16.040 Lot coverage. A. Main buildings, accessory buildings, structures, tennis courts, swimming pools, service yards. (enclosed or unenclosed), stables, or an area of not: less than two hundred square feet for the construction of a ,7 stable, with vehicle access thereto, shall not cover more •- '°than twenty percent of the net lot area; provided furthef,. •• that in addition to the above -described improvements, thi areas included within driveways, parking space, walks, patios, decks, and asphalt or concrete paving of any kind, excepting roads maintained by the Rolling Hi unity Association, shall not cover more thar(thirty-five perce of the net lot area. 35 Fjc • B. For the purposes of. this section, 'net area' shall exclude all -perimeter easements to a maximum of ten feet and that portion of the lot or parcel of land which is used for roadway purposes, and shall also exclude any private drive or driveway which provides ingress and egress to any other lot or parcel of land, and access strip portion of any flag lot. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 181 51, 1980: Ord. 33 53.04, 1960). 17.16.050 Height limitation. In the RA-5 zone, no building aha11 exceed one stor in _height.except a .barn or stable which rmainave}`a- loft -without glazed openings to be used exclusively and only for the storage of feed, tack and stable equipment. Where a dwelling is constructed on a split level, such height limitation shall be' construed in a vertical plane, considering only that portion of said build- ing or dwelling which is on the same level. There shall be no habitable space, including garages and storage rooms, on top of another, except over basements: A basement is not to exceed' a height of five feet above finished grade at any point immediately adjacent to the base- ment exterior, and it shall. have no greater than an average two -and -one -half -foot exterior height across the entire struc- ture. Basements may have one standard door opening not to exceed three feet by six feet eight inches for ingress/egress to the exterior, to be accessed by an areaway not to exceed four feet in width and which shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building but shall not have any other exterior openings, sunlights or similar devices. (Ord. 203 51, 1983: Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 82 $1, 1969: Ord. 33 53.05, 1960) . 17.16.060 Front Yard. Every lot or parcel in zone �t3t, RA-S shall have a front yard of not less than fifty feet, measured horizontally from. the front easement line. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 169 S1, 1979; Ord. 33 S3.06, 1960), 204 MO1ir+n II; 11•• a le.� 17.16.070--17.14.120 17.16.07C. Side yards.1 A. Every lot or parcel in the <RA-S-2)zone snaii 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. S. Every lot or parcel in the(RA-S-1)zone shall have g 1 side yards of not less than twenty eet. Zn 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 51, 1983; Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 183, 1980: Ord. 33 $3. 07, 1960) . • 17.16.080 Rear parc1,, Every lot or parcel in the RA-S zone shall have a rear yard of not less than !lip feet. �� !lip 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) . 17.14.090 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 tht 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 IC of this chapter. (Ord. 211 $2, 1986) . 17.16.120 Additional development standards. Premises in RA-S zone shall be subject to all of the following additional development standards: A. Every single-family dwelling and mobilehome provided for in this title shall be not less than twenty feet in width and shall have a floor area of not less than one thousand l5 three hundred square feet exclusive of any appurtenant struc- 300 •tures. • 204-1 (Rolling Hills 11/86) 17.2$.022--17.2$.060 17.28.022 Structures permitted in yards. A. Required yards shall be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground up of any structure except as follows: 1. Boundary fences are permitted in any front, side or rear yard. 2. Driveways leading to a garage or other parking area are permitted in any yard provided the driveway and parking area do not exceed twenty percent of the area of the yard in which they are located. 3. Parking areas, uncovered, are permitted in any front or side yard; provided, that they do not exceed ten percent of the area of the yard in which they are located and; provided further, they are not located closer than thirty feet from any roadway easement. B. Nothing in this section permits a driveway or other paved way in excess of fifteen feet in width except where approved by the Commission as a part of the development plan. .(Ord. 188(part), 1981). 17.28.030 Fence height. Boundary fences shall not be located in any easement where their erection is prohibited. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 $5.03, 1960). 17.28.040 Lot area reduction prohibited. No lot area shall be so reduced or diminished that the lot area, average width, yards or other open spaces shall be smaller than prescribed by this title. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 55.04, 1960) . 17.28.050 Nonconforming use limits other uses. While a nonconforming use exists on any lot, no new use may be established thereon even though such other use would be a conforming use. A nonconforming use is a lawful use existing on the effective date of the zoning restriction and continuing since that time in nonconformance with the zoning restriction. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 55.05, 1960). 17.28.060 Nonconforming use of conforming building. The nonconforming use of a conforming building existing on the effective date on the ordinance codified in this title may be continued; provided that such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the building, nor shall any structural alterations except those required by law be made, and if such nonconforming use is dis- continued, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of this title. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 55.06, 1960). 208 (Rolling Hills 8/83) • 411 17.08.020-•17.01.080 17.08.020 Accessory building. "Accessory building' means a subordinate building on the same lot or building site, the use of which is incidental to thatof the main building, and which is used exclusively by the occupants of the main building. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.04, 1960) . 17.08.030 Accessory use. "Accessory use' means a use customarily incidental and accessory to the principal use of a lot or building located upon the same lot or building site. (Ord. 188(part) , 1981: Ord. 33 51.05, 1960) . 17.08.040 Allex. 'Alley" means a public thoroughfare having a width of not less than twenty feet nor more than thirty feet which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting property. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.06, 1960). • 17.08.050 Amendment. 'Amendment" means a change in the wording, context or substance of this title, or change in the zone boundaries upon the zoning map, which map is a part of this title, when adopted by ordinance passed by the City Council in the manrrer prescribed by law. (Ord. 188 (part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.07, 1960). 17.08.055 Boundary fence. "Boundary fence" means a wooden fence constructed of four -inch by four -inch vertical posts protruding fifty-four inches above ground and spaced not more than ten feet measured from center to center and attached thereto two-inch by six-inch boards running hori- zontally, starting three inches from the top and spaced fifteen inches from center to center, located along or within five feet inside of any perimeter easement or in the absence of such easement, within five feet inside of the property line. Wire fencing may be attached to the inner side of a boundary fence. (Ord. 188(part), 1981). 17.08.060 Building. "Building" means a structure having a roof supported Jby columns or walls. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.08, 1960). 17.08.070 Building height. 'Building height' means the vertical distance measured from the lowest part of the building to the top of the roof of the highest part of the building (excepting towers and spires). (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.09, 1960). 17.08.080 Building, main. "Main building' means a building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is located. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 $1.10, 1960). 194 (Rolling Hills 8/83) May 7, 1991 TO: Craig Nealis, City Manager FROM: Julie Heinsheimer RE: Landscape Review for Zoning Case #393 Haueisen Residence 6 Eastfield Drive Having reviewed the landscape plan for the above project, as well as the site, it has been determined that the plant material was carefully chosen to meet the requirements stipulated in Zoning Case 393. Intermediate -size trees and shrubs will screen the garage and the slopes are to be hydroseeded with native flowers and grasses. Sincerely, e Heinsheimer Landscape Consultant April 24, 1991 TO: ATTENTION: FROM: SUBJECT: • City opeoeenS _Afro JULIE HEINSHEIMER 7 JOHNS CANYON ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 LANDSCAPE REVIEW FOR ZONING CASE NO. 393 HAUEISEN RESIDENCE 6 EASTFIELD Here is our third project. Enclosed are the landscape plan, the estimate and Resolution No. 91-2. I have marked Section 6, Paragraphs (E) and (F) that pertain to landscape plan approval on the resolution. Please review the information and let us know whether you can approve the plans and estimate as proposed. If you are not comfortable with any aspect of the plan, please make a note of your concerns and we will forward them to the applicant. • Cl` O Ail ng ifilld INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 March 26, 1991 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Modification to ZONING CASE NO. 393: Request for a Second Modification to the Previously Approved Site Plan Review to Allow for the Construction of a Subterranean Garage. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on March 11, 1991, received and filed the Planning Commission's approval of the subject 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, No. 91-2 specifying conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission, is enclosed for your information. We have also enclosed the previous Resolution No. 90-34 that you requested. 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 cal me at (213) 377-1521, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lola Ung Principal Planner LU/bc Enclosures: Resolution No. 91-2 and 90-34 Affidavit of Acceptance Form City i R0M JUL CERTIFIED MAIL RESULTS OF CASE March 12, 1991 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 512 E. Carlin St. P. O. Box 4789 Compton, CA 90224 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393 6 Eastfield Drive (Lot 62EF) Request for a modification of a previously approved site plan to construct an attached subterranean garage (previously approved as detached) with driveway access and amend the Resolution of Approval accordingly. Dear and Mrs. Haueisen: Pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, this letter shall serve as official notification that the subject Zoning Case application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their adjourned regular meeting of March 9, 1991. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to aonrove the above request. The final Resolution and conditions of approval will be forwarded to you following execution by the Planning Commission Chairman. The Planning Commission's decision was reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on March 11, 1991. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within twenty days of receipt of this letter, pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution 614, establishing the fee for filing an appeal is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Principal Planner , LU/bc cc:. Tom Black, 279 W. Seventh St., San Pedro, CA 90731-3321, 1991 f City 0/ Ailing INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 March 4, 1991 Mrs. Robert Johnson 8 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE NO. 393 AT 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE Dear Mrs. Johnson: The Planning Commission has asked me to thank you for expressing your concerns about the impairment of your view at the new residential site proposed at 6 Eastfield Drive. The original date of approval for Zoning Case No. 393 was August 4, 1990. Recently, that previous proposal was modified and approved by the Planning Commission to underground the proposed garage. So, even if the modification had not been approved the previous proposal was approved and could still be built. Thank you again for your letter and your concerns. Please call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, PRINCIPAL PLANNER •i Feb. 18, 1991 Rolling Hills Planning Commission Dear Planning Commissioners: 1 live at /t2 Outrider and pass by 6 Eastfield several times a day. I understand that you are deciding between an underground garage or a conventional garage on that property. Because Eastfield almost completely circles this property and it is viewable from all sides ,I believe that the underground plan would certainly make less of an impact and be more in keeping with the rural open space look of our city. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion. F E B 19 1991 City Of Rolling Hills 39, Cti ("Rolling A INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 February 7, 1991 Mr. •& Mrs. Charles Haueisen 6 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274: SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 230; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM SIZE FOR STABLES AND CORRALS AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: Please find enclosed a copy of City Ordinance No. 230 adopted by the City Council on January 28, 1991. This new Ordinance will take effect on February 27, 1991. Please note that this Ordinance may affect the progress of the plans you have submitted because it stipulates that a minimum of 1,000 sq.ft. must be set aside for horsekeeping facilities (a minimum of 450 sq.ft. for stable and 550 sq. ft. for corral). The Ordinance further states that the stable and corral must be located on property having a slope of no greater than 4:1, and that the stable foot print will be included in calculation of structural coverage of the lot. If this new Ordinance does impact your project, you are advised to contact your architect or project manager. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rolling Hills Principal Planner Lola Ungar at (213) 377- 1521. Sincerely, A /14h Craig R. Nealis City Manager CN:ds Cu, ` Rolling February 6, 1991 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 6 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 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF ZONING CASE NO. 393 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: Please be advised that the Planning Commission continued the subject application to an adjourned meeting to be held Saturdav,, February 16. 1991 at 7:30 AM. so as to conduct a field inspection of the site. The site must be prepared with a full-size silhouette of the proposed proiect showina the roof ridae and bearing walls, and the owner and/or representative should be present. Please call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER FLDTRP/LMU • • City 0/ /Ef/4 _Will; INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 November 8, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for a Variance exceed to the 20 percent coverage of a required side yard setback to construct a driveway; Request for Modification of an approved site plan to construct a detached garage with driveway access and amend the Resolution of Approval accordingly at property located at 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: 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 November 3, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the above request. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on November 12, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution 614, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Anne Palantino Interim Principal Planner Encls /jr CC: Ms. Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager • th4f ofi? Pfi..s JUL Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for an Approval for a Variance to exceed the twenty percent permitted driveway coverage of the side yard to construct a driveway and a modification to the previously approved site plan to construct a detached garage and amending the Resolution of approval #90-34 for Site Plan Review approval accordingly in regards to your property located at 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on November 13, 1990, received and filed 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 Ms. Anne Palatino, Interim Principal Planner, at 377-1521, if you have any questions. /jr Very truly, 19)ateg,4_74.; Anne Palatino Interim Principal Planner • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.) Acceptance Form STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. VARIANCE CASE NO. 393 (Resolution #90-34) SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 393 (Resolution #90-34) I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows: 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (Lot 62-EF) This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said Conditional Use Permit Case No. Variance Case No. 393 (Resolution #90-34) Site Plan Review Case No. -491 (RPso1ut•ion #90-34) I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Where the owner and applicant. are not the same, both must sign.) Type or print Applicant Name Address City, State Signature Owner Name Address City, State Signature This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgement. • • et. ov e ra 01 City o/ Rotting November 8, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393: Request for a Variance exceed to the 20 percent coverage of a required side yard setback to construct a driveway; Request for Modification of an approved site plan to construct a detached garage with driveway access and amend the Resolution of Approval accordingly at property located at 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: 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 November 3, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the above request. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on November 12, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution 614, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Anne Palantino Interim Principal Planner Encls /jr CC: Ms. Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager ®° RICHARD M. LINDE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2200 AMAPOLA COURT, SUITE 200 City of Rolling Hills Planning Commissioners • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90501 Ref: Mixed Use Structure (stable/garage) 6 Eastfield Owners: Mr & Mrs. Charles Haueisen Dear Commissioners: a. i. a. architect • [213] 320-8052 October 15, 1990 The purpose of this letter is to address this mixed use structure as it pertains to a more desirable land plan use for this particular site. As you are aware, the greater portion of this site is fronted by Eastfield Drive which affords views of structures from.three.sides. It therefore seems logical to combine two uses into one building which would provide a more pleasing land plan incorporating just two structures. We would appreciate your consideration of this concept and hope it meets with your approval. Since ely, Ri and M. Linde AIA RML:gll `OHIL, 110)6ii /eO/4 „AIL O „LLLa�INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 41, it =o ao r : _ s f October 11, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393 Modification for a Stable/Garage structure Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 The Planning Commission will be discussing Zoning Case No. 393 for a request for Modification for a Stable/Garage structure at their next regular meeting on Tuesday, October 16, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at (213) 377-1521. Sincerely, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ray Hamada Principal Planner RH:jr cc: Mr. Richard Linde, Architect Ci1y ofi2 FP,.S Jh/7L Mr. Charles Haueisen 6 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 195/ NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 September 13, 1990 Re: Request for extension of approval for Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence; Reauest for modification to approved site plan and to amend the Resolution of Approval - Zoning Case No. 393, Lot 62-EF Dear Mr. Haueisen: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on September 10, 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 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 me if you have any questions. Very truly, Ray Hamada Principal Planner Encl. /jc 0 • RESOLUTION NO. 90-22 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW ACCORDINGLY IN ZONING CASE NO. 393 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen with respect to real property located at 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 62-EF) requesting a modification to the previously approved site plan to include an additional 480 square feet of floor area to the residential structure and amending the Resolution of Approval accordingly. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 19, 1990 and July 17, 1990, and conducted a field site review on June 30, 1990. Section 3. Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent modification after a site plan review application has been approved. Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed, including additions or deletions, may be considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or conditions shall be in the same manner as set forth in Section 17.34.040 of the Municipal Code. Section 4. Pursuant to the foregoing Section, the Planning Commission makes the finding that previous findings determined with the approved Resolution No. 89-15, dated July 8, 1989, can be restated. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing Section, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for modification for Zoning Case No. 393 to permit an additional 480 square feet to the proposed residential structure, as indicated on the development plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 4 (A) of the previously approved Resolution shall hereby read now as follows: A. The proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to the Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 45, 798 square feet. The proposed residential structure, garage, and future stable will have 7,638 square feet which constitutes approximately 16.7% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20% lot coverage requirement. A • The total lot coverage including paved areas will be 13,544 square feet which equals 29.6% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum structural lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring development patterns. Section 6. Except as herein amended, the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 89-15, adopted on July 8, 1989, as extended and amended by this Resolution adopted on August 4, 1990, shall be in full force and effect. ATTEST: PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1990. 19/X4914,//1-r. City Clerk 4th day of August , Allan Roberts, Chairman ,`CMG ' ►- z July 27, 1990 MI! • C1i, 0//20fA Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Vedes, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 As you have been notified, the Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of July 17, 1990, approved your request for extension of approval on site plan review ,a modification to the previously approved site plan and amendment to the Resolution of approval accordingly for an additional 480 square feet to the proposed residential structure. Please be advised, however, the remainder of the application to include a modification to the stable was continued until the Municipal Code has been amended regarding "Mixed Use Structures. You and/or your representative will be notified in the future regarding the status of your application. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at City Hall. Sincerely, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ray Ramada Principal Planner cc Rolling Hills Community Association Richard Linde • City o/ Rolling Jh/LJ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 July 19, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 6 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for Modification to approve new residential additions on the Site Plan and to Amend the Resolution of Approval Dear Mr. & Mrs. Haueisen: 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 July 17, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request for the new residential modifications to Approve the Site Plan and to Amend the Resolution of Approval. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on August 13, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution 614, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, CITOF R. ING HILLS Ray Ramada Principal Planner Encls /jr cc: Mr. Richard Linde, Architect Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager • Robert Johnson • Eight Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 June 26, 1990 Rolling Hills Planning Commission City Hall Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the proposed modifications to the construction at #6 Eastfield Drive and for your record wish to state we find no objections. This is also true of the new orientation of the garage doors. Yours truly, RJ:vf vr CRob�.it Johnson Patricia C. Johnson Applicant: Address: Cii o/ R0ft JII/'1 TO: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen 28879 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 FROM: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 The plan for: modification of previously Approved Sire Plan Rcau ew ana to Amend the Approved Resolution For Zoning Case 393. Mr, &Mrs, Charles Haueisen 6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (a) Complies with City Zoning requirements (b) Needs Variance ( ) Contact City for application and submittal requirements. (c) Needs Conditional Use Permit Contact City for application and submittal requirements. (d) Needs Site Plan Review Contact City for application and submittal requirements. (e) Xx Other (see below) The Planning Commission at their regular meeting held June 19, 1990, continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting to be held Saturday, June 30, 1990, at 7:30 A.M., So as to conduct a field inspection of the Site and surrounding properties. The property must be prepared to exhibit the proposed project, and the owner and/or representative should be present. Should you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at this office. June 21, 1990 CC: Mr, Greg Haddon & Mr..Richaxd Linde Architects Ray Ramada Principal Planner June 20, 1990 Planning Commission of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 Subj: Zoning Case 393 Dear Commissioner, This letter is to indicate to you that we are asking for an extension of Approved Zoning Case 393. The first reason is that the stable/garage structure has not been resolved by the Planning Commission and has delayed us in our construction schedule. The second reason is that we have made a slight increase of 480 square feet to make a more desirable living area. Due to the aforementioned reasons, we are asking that you grant us a one year extension to the above referenced Case. Thanking you in advance for you consideration in this matter, I am, Sincerely Yours, Margar ) A. Haueisen Charles E. Haueisen ..Z.„C%3r3 MAH/kd ®° RICHARD M. LINDE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. a. i. a. architect 2200 AMAPOLA COURT, SUITE 200 • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90501 • [213) 320-B052 May 18, 1990 90-073 PLANNING COMMISSION City of Rolling Hills Ref: Residence floor area modification to approved Zoning Case #393 (Haueisen Residence) Dear Commissioners: j'7,5 4so The Owner requests a app oval for a additional,-52 square feet of residential floor area. This additional area increases the lot coverage from 16.5% to The increased area reduces the northerly side yard setback from 69'-0" to 63'-6". We thank you for your attention to this matter and hope it meets with your approval. Sincerely, and M. Linde AIA RML:gll TO: FROM: i C14 leo«..y INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 MR. AND MRS. CHARLES HAUEISEN 28879 CRESTRIDGE ROAD, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS The plan for: Applicant: Address: (a) (b) Needs Variance ( (c) (d) (e) XX Other (see below) Contact City for application and Needs Conditional Use Permit Contact City for application and Needs Site Plan Review Contact City for application and ZONING CASE NO. 393 HAUEISEN REFERENCE: 6 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA Complies with City Zoning requirements submittal submittal submittal requirements. requirements. requirements. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting held May 15, 1990, continued indefinitely the above -stated application to allow the Commission time to study and develop policy regarding the mixed -used accessory structure issue. You will be notified when the Commission will 'rehear your application. MAY 17, 1990 Rat Hamada Principal Planner ku cc RICHARD LINDE • • RICHARD NI. LIIVDE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. a. i. a. architect 2200 AMAPOLA COURT, SUITE 200 • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90501 • [213] 320-e052 March 5, 1990 90-026 8909 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA Att: Planning Commission Ref: Garage E Stable Haueisen Residence Zoning Case: 393 Dear Commissioners: The applicant requests a amendment to the approved Zoning Case 393 allowing a additional four -hundred (400) square feet to the garage/ stable structure,. On the original site plan review we assumed a graded area for a stable of approximately one -thousand (1000) square feet. Since then we would like to incorporate a workshop, toilet facilities and auto storage which would necessitate a additional four -hundred (400) square feet. As you review the initial site plan, the location and graded areas are primarily the same. Your consideration and approval on this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely, RML:gll Charles Haueisen (by Richard M. Linde) .1a. MAR 0 0 1990 City 0f Rolling Hills Ay . ac- 393