583, Addition of 578 SF to SFR, con, Correspondence•
City `Ie0f44 JUL
CERTIFIED MAIL
September 22, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. Donald Banker
5 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
ZONING CASE NO. 583, 5 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 57-EF)
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Banker:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution on September 15, 1998 to approve your request granting Site Plan
Review approval to convert an existing garage to residential uses, to construct
additions, and to construct a new attached garage that requires grading for
property at 5 Eastfield Drive (Lot 57-EF), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No.
583. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the
Commission will be reported to the City Council on September 28, 1998.
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 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.
If no appeals 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.
We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 98-19, specifying the
conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the
approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have
reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF
ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward 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
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each
additional page.
The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to
issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any
conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits
are met.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ENC: RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE.
cc: Mr. Raymond Medak
• •
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
Recorder's Use
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation).
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE NO. 583
§§
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
5 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 57-EF)
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 583 SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
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
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public..
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or 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.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
• •
kXi-//6 /T';4'
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL USES,
TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONS AND TO CONSTRUCT A N E W
ATTACHED GARAGE THAT REQUIRES GRADING FOR A N
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO.
583.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Banker
with respect to real property located at 5 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 57-EF)
requesting Site Plan Review to convert an existing garage to residential uses,
construct additions and a new attached garage that requires grading for an existing
single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the new application on July 21, 1998, August 18, 1998, and
September 15,1998, and at a field trip visit on August 10, 1998. The applicants were
notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's
newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in the
project, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied the project.
Concerns expressed by Commissioners, concerned residents and the applicants
focused on preservation of the uphill neighbors' view corridor, the surveyed
easements, structural coverage on the building pad, and relocation of a future stable
and corral. During the hearing process, the new garage was reduced from a 3-car
garage to a 2-car garage.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted
for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be
constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings
may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the
size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36)
month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application to convert an
existing garage to residential uses, to construct additions and to construct a new
attached garage that requires grading for an existing single family residence, the
Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
PAGE 1 OF 5
• •
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because 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 Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has
a net square foot area of 35,777 square feet. The proposed residence (3,094 sq.ft.),
garage (550 sq.ft.), swimming pool/spa (805 sq.ft.), shed (48 sq.ft.), and future stable
(450 sq.ft.) will have 4,947 square feet which constitutes 13.83% of the lot which is
within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,939 square feet which equals
33.40% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the
proposed additions located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of
the development.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to
the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot
including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land
forms (such as hillsides and knolls). The lot has a relatively gentle slope and most
of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will only be done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing
neighboring residences.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize
grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the north
rear side of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements them with landscaping
that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Although the project will have a residential pad coverage of 52.16%, the total pad
coverage will be 57.38% and the project will be located on a relatively gently sloped
lot where significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The development
plans will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive as the garage will be located further
away from the road and grading is proposed to improve drainage for the property.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped.
F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
PAGE 2 OF 5
• •
irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to
the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will use existing driveways and replace and relocate a garage
entrance for vehicular access that will have less of an impact on Eastfield Drive.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental
review.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 583 to
convert an existing garage to residential uses, to construct additions and to construct
a new attached garage that requires grading for an existing single family residence as
indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to
the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080(A), unless construction on
the applicable portions of the structure have commenced within that time period.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval
that if any conditions thereof are violated, the approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall be subject to revocation; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do
so for a period of thirty (30) days and has been provided additional notice and a
hearing prior to the revocation of the Permit.
C. All requirements of the Buildings Code of the City of Rolling Hills and
the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance must be complied with unless otherwise set
forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file dated August 25, 1998, and marked Exhibit A, except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan
approved with this application.
F. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 52.16%.
G. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 12,264 square feet or 34.28%
of the net lot area.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
PAGE 3 OF 5
H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13.83% and total lot coverage
shall not exceed 33.40%.
I. Grading shall not exceed 10 cubic yards of cut soil and 10 cubic yards of
fill soil and shall be balanced on site.
J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural
features to the greatest extent possible.
K. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
L. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained to obscure the buildings
and the building pad with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible
with the surrounding vegetation of the community.
M. Landscaping materials shall not be planted that would obscure existing
viewscapes.
N. The Pepper trees located north of the proposed residential additions
shall be trimmed and maintained in a manner so that the views from the property
at 7 Eastfield Drive through the lower portion of those trees is preserved.
O. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the
City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
P. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permit.
Q. In accordance with Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute minor modifications
shall be reviewed and acted upon by the City Manager or designee, and any
modifications to the project which would constitute major modifications shall be
reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission.
R. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the
Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
PAGE 4 OF 5
• •
S. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review or the approval shall not be effective.
T. All conditions of this Site Plan Review approval must be complied
with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY GF SEI B ;,, 1998.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
. 1-4 JU-1. )
MARILYN I ERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-19 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL USES, TO
CONSTRUCT ADDITIONS AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
ATTACHED GARAGE THAT REQUIRES GRADING FOR AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 583.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 15, 1998 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, White
And Chairman Roberts.
None.
Commissioner Sommer.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 98-19
PAGE 5 OF 5
• •
17.54.010
17.54 APPEALS
17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals
A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this
Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall
be filed in writing with the City Clerk.
B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day
after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on
the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as
required by Section 1730.030 of this Title.
C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a
resolution which approves or denies a development
application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a
report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council
may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take
jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City
Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning
Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council
completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.
17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal
Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of
the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with
the terms of this Chapter..
17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in an Appeal Application
A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a
form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall
be considered filed until the required appeal fee has been
received by the City Clerk.
B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name
and address of the appellant, the project and action being
appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that
the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or
why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by
evidence in the record.
76
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24,1993
17.54.030
C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City
Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the
appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is
deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an
amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of
receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal
application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee
will be returned to the applicant.
17.54.040 Request for Information
Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee,
the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to
transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire
proceeding before the Planning Commission.
17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing
Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a
hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing
of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for
the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard
at the same time.
17.54.060 Proceedings
A. Noticing
The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030 of
this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed:
1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed;
2. The appellant; and
3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written
comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of
the public hearing on the project.
B. Hearing
The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall
consider all information in the record, as well as additional
information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action
on the appeal.
77
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1993
• •
17.54,060
C. Action
The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the
Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the
Council may remand the application back to the Planning
Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall
make findings to support its decision.
D. Finality of Decision
The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or
deny an application shall be final and conclusive.
E. Record of Proceedings
The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a
resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the
applicant or the appellant.
17.54.070 Statute of Limitations
Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by
the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing
is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and
discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of
facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in
any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within
the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
78 MAY 24, 1993
P 852 865 272
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
Sent to ,„
.04
Street apd-No.
5476,, er,—
P. �Sta e and P C d )/�� 3 //%//3
Postage v 6 n
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
35
Return Receipt showing l a
to whom and Date Delivered
in
Return Receipt s,.�hyang, to whom,,
Date, and Addf po R�ef,
TOTAL Pljt° st.W.andC F�ees� 7 "i D 7
o Postma k ate _ ) n
el
E 'A Oa
0
cn US:
a �.
.'a0
W
1-
5.
permit.
■ Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the maiipiece below the article number.
6 ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
c delivered.
0
3. Article Addressed to:
a
0
u
�;. SENDER:
o • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
■ Complete Items 3, 4a, and 4b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this
card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back If space does not
mr. /;7,-S Unet / / �a�i Jew-
619
tQ%1':t� ?Li; 15, CM 9 7V
eived By: (Print Na
ssee or Agent) ,
PS Form 3811, December 1994 102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee):
1. 0 Addressee's Address
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number
8s. 86S a"7a
4b. Service Type
❑ RegisterecI3 tP1144
❑ Express� i c
❑ Retucfs
"� c"eli ltf�ir e
7. Date df o
8. Address
and fee
Lertified
❑ Insured
❑ COD
if requested
• 010
li@M9
SEP 151998
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Rv
Mr. Allen Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
Dear Mr. Roberts,
September 14, 1998
As current owners and residents of 7 Eastfield Drive, we hereby withdraw any
opposition to the application of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Banker, our next door neighbors, to
construct the addition to their residence as described in the latest revised plans of their
architect.
We respectfully request that any approval be appropriately conditioned on: usual
procedures designed to avoid noise and dust, equipment be restricted to the Banker's
property and the accommodation offered by the Bankers to keep trees and bushes thinned
to maintain the remaining side lot view.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann and Ed Surprenant
7 Eastfield Drive
„ID
prEOVE
AUG 1 71998
CITY OF ROLLING .HILLS
Mr. Allen Roberts RV August 14, 1998
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
Dear Mr. Roberts,
We regret that we will be unable to attend the August 18, 1998 meeting of the Planning
Commissioners. Mary Ann's sister, who lives in Pennsylvania, is to have a medical
procedure on the 18th. She lives alone and is relying on us to be there on the 17th.
We appreciate the Committee considering our concern about the impact that a three car
garage in Mr. and Mrs. Banker's front yard will have on the view from our home. Views
are an important part of the enjoyment of living in Rolling Hills and, of course, also
impact our property values. Having both a pastoral view from the back of our home and a
city lights view from the front is a feature that attracted us to this property 28 years ago
and that we and our guests continue to enjoy. (The city lights view from the back corner
of the house is nice but is not the primary concern.)
After briefly looking at the basic plot plan for the addition, there definitely are viable
alternatives that would satisfy the Banker's request to increase their living area and garage
YE
space. Alternatives can be designed that would accomplish this and^not present an
obtrusive obstruction to the radiant city view from the front of our property. We should
work together to maintain and enhance views in our beautiful city.
• •
Since we were completely unaware of the building plans until just before the July 21
Commission meeting, and as yet do not have a copy of the plans to analyze, we cannot
make specific suggestions at this time. If a copy of the plans were made available to us,
we would be most pleased to get together with our neighbors and another architect (at our
expense) and discuss possibilities that would enhance their property without a negative
impact on ours.
We hope the Commissioners will delay making a final decision on this project so that
we can explore alternatives with Mr. and Mrs. Banker after we return from Pennsylvania
at the end of this month.
Sincerely,
/2-ir
Mary Ann andtBd Surprenant
7 Eastfield Drive
•
City o`Ro�e�nS.�r�e,
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
August 4, 1998
Dr. and Mrs. Edgar Surprenant
7 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 583, Request for Site Plan Review to permit
construction of substantial additions to an existing single family residence
at 5 Eastfield Drive (Lot 57-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Surprenant:
We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of the subject
property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Monday, August 10,1998.
The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at 6:00 PM at the property.
The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the
proposal.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
'ems --/(
(-' LOLA M. UNGAR V
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
City (Peeling fiiild
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
July 23, 1998
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Mr. and Mrs. Donald Banker
5 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 583, Request for Site Plan Review to permit
construction of substantial additions to an existing single family residence
at 5 Eastfield Drive (Lot 57-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Banker:
We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your
property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Monday, August 10, 1998.
The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at 6:00 PM at your property.
The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines
and the following requirements:
• A full-size silhouette must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing
the footprints, roof ridges, bearing walls and any retaining walls;
• Stake or flag the limits of the building pad, the front, side and rear yard setbacks
adjacent to the residential area; and
• Delineate areas to be graded showing finished floor or grade elevations.
The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the
proposal.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
LOLA M. UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTO
cc: Mr. Raymond Medak
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
City 0/ Rolling
INCORPORATED JANIJARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377.7288
SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
1. When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a
silhouette of proposed construction should be erected for the
week preceding the designated Planning Commission or City
Council meeting. The Silhouette shall not remain erected for
a period longer than one week unless directed by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
2. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber.
Printed boards are not acceptable.
3. Bracing should be provided where possible.
4. Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to
delineate roof ridges and eaves.
5. Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire
or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed
construction.
6. The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete
silhouettes are constructed.
7. If you have any futher questions contact the Planning
Department Staff at (213) 377-1521.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
SECTION
W
I I
PLAN
1$
• •
City 0/eo te S
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING X• (310) 377-7288
E ail: cityofrh@aol.com
July 10, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. Donald Banker
5 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 583, Request for Site Plan Review to permit construction of
substantial additions to an existing single family residence at 5 Eastfield Drive
(Lot 57-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Banker:
Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application
noted above and finds that the information submitted is:
X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be
processed.
Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or
otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is
strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the
processing of the application.
Your application for Zoning Case No. 583 has been set for public hearing consideration by the
Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 1998.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated
representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions.
The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, July
17, 1998. We will forward a copy to you.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
cc: Mr. Raymond Medak
Panted on Recycled Papei