The URL can be used to link to this page

300, Addition of a bedroom, enlarge, CorrespondenceTHOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor GODFREY PERNELL Mayor pro tem GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman California Federal Savings & Loan Association Attn: Tom Carson Re: Mr. & Mrs. Philip F. Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA, 90274 Lot 192-A., 1,-*MS INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 September 16, 1985 Lot 192-A-1-MS consists of 4.433 gross acres, and 3.89- net acres, and is located in the RAS-2 zone. The definition of RA-S is Residential Agriculture- Suburban; the suffix "2" indicates that the minimum lot size permitted in that area is 2 acres net. Copies of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code are available for your review. Please call this office if you have any further questions. Thomas A. Devereux City Manager TAD:gb City AM. JUL Mr. Harry Kondo, District Engineer Los Angeles County Engineer 24320 South Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 April 26, 1985 Re: Zoning Case No. 300 Lot 192-A-1-MS Dear Harry: Enclosed is a copy of the recorded Acceptance Form required by the City of Rolling Hills pursuant to Ordinance No. 207, which has been executed by the owner of property located at 12 Crest Road East in the City of Rolling Hills. This executed form is to be made part of the file for the property known as Lot 192-A-1-MS. Permits may now be issued for work in connection with the Variance approved on February 25, 1985 for the subject property. Very truly, Joseph P. Leach City Manager copy: Mr. and Mrs. Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 JPL/ j c a,City. opeollinl GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor pro tem JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Belleville: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377:1521 March 6, 1985 Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 531 which was adopted by the Rolling Hills City Council at a regular meeting. on Monday, February 25, 1985, and an Affidavit of Acceptance to. be executed and recorded, then returned for our files. Please note that condition No. 2 in Exhibit D states that the approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the affidavit has been signed and recorded. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call this office. JPL/ j c 411 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ E \GICIEE RS & PA\\ERS Anaheim, Norwalk, Ventura, Lancaster, San Bernardino and San Diego, California Mr. Joseph P. Leach City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Leach: C� �c;; February 8, 1985 U RECIIVfli (Cj SIGHT DISTANCE AT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AT 12 CREST ROAD On January 14, 1985, our study regarding sight distance at a proposed driveway at 12 Crest Road was submitted. This report was based upon your indication to us that all trees along the frontage of the property as well as the Association's three rail fence would remain in place. With these items remaining, sight distance would be limited to approximately 180 feet, about 70 feet less than the minimum stopping sight distance calculated for existing conditions. As a result, our previous report did not recommend construction of the proposed driveway as shown on the site plan. During discussion of this report by the City Council on January 28, 1985, it was determined that a meeting should be held at the location with representatives of Mr. Philip Belleville to jointly review existing condi- tions and to discuss alternative solutions. On Friday, February 1, 1985, a meeting was held with Mr. George Shaw of Edward Carson Beall and Associates and Mr. Doug McHattie of South Bay Engineering. Following is a summary of our field meeting: 1. Thirty inch diameter eucalyptus tree - It was agreed that the 30 inch diameter eucalyptus tree located approximately 60 feet east of the proposed driveway limits sight distance. With this tree in place, motorists exiting the proposed driveway would be unable to see a westbound vehicle in the area between 180 and 260 feet east of the proposed driveway. Removal of this tree would allow motorists exiting the proposed driveway to view westbound vehicles approaching on Crest Road but they would still be required to look between the three rails of the Association's fence. 2. Property owner fence - The existing fence owned by Mr. Belleville is presently 10 feet from and parallel to the edge of pavement on Crest Road. The site plan indicates that this fence will be relocated 10 feet further away from Crest Road so that it will be 20 feet from the edge of pavement. At the proposed location, this fence will not interfere with sight distance from the posi- tion at which a vehicle would stop prior to entering Crest Road. 14714 CARMENITA ROAD • SUITE 300 • NORWALK • CALIFORNIA 90650-5284 • (213) 921-8215 • (714) 523-4702 • Mr. Joseph P. Leach -2- February 8, 1985 3. Parallel portion of Association's three rail fence - The Associa- tion's three rail fence is now five feet from and parallel to the existing edge of pavement. These 2 x 6 rails are located 18 inches, 32 inches, and 48 inches above the ground. From the position of a motorist's eye at a height of 3.5 feet above the proposed driveway elevation and 10 feet from the edge of pavement on Crest Road, it was agreed that motorists exiting the proposed driveway would be required to look between the rails of the Association's fence in its present position. Relocation of the portion of the Association's fence which parallels Crest Road back from the edge of pavement by an additional seven feet would eliminate this portion of the sight distance limitation. With this, the Association's fence would be a total of 12 feet from the edge of pavement. 4. Return portion of Association's three -rail fence - Approximately 5 feet east of the proposed driveway, the Association's three rail fence flares open from the trail toward Crest Road. This return on the fence also has three 2 x 6 rails located at the same elevation above the ground level, with the return ending approxi- mately 2 feet from the edge of pavement. To permit a motorist leaving the proposed driveway to look over and not be obstructed by this portion of the fence, it was agreed that the return portion should be no higher than 3 feet above ground level. This could be accomplished by eliminating the top rail on the return portion of the fence. In regard to relocation of the Association's fence, Mr. Shaw has advised us that he met with them yesterday and obtained their approval for relocation of their fence and for modification of the return as discussed above. He also noted that relocation of both fences would create an un- obstructed trail width of at least 8 feet, with this being acceptable to the Association. With removal of the thirty inch diameter tree, relocation of the property owner fence to a position 20 feet from the edge of pavement, relo- cation of the Association's fence to a position 12 feet from the edge of pavement and the height limitation of 3 feet for the return portion of the Association's fence, stopping sight distance at the proposed driveway would be approximately 300 feet. This exceeds the calculated stopping sight distance of 250 feet for existing conditions at this location. While several other alternatives for driveway access to and from 12 Crest Road were discussed at our field meeting, Mr. Shaw indicated that these would not be acceptable to Mr. Belleville for aesthetic and other reasons. Considering all factors, construction of the proposed driveway with the various conditions discussed above would be acceptable from a traffic engineering viewpoint. • • Mr. Joseph P. Leach -3- February 8, 1985 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this additional information to. the City of Rolling Hills for your consideration. Should you have any questions or should you need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Tom Brohard Manager Transportation Engineering Department TWB:dmv JN 55432 s • Cii ofieoffin9 Jh/1 GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Mayor THOMAS F.' HEINSHEIMER Mayor pro tem JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. and Mrs. Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 January 24, 1985 Re: Zoning Case No. 300 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Belleville: This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance for reduction of the front yard on Lot 192-A-1-MS to permitencroachment of a residence addition into the established front yard of your .pro- perty llocated at 12 Crest Road East was approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 18, 1984. A report of the Planning Commission's action as required by Section 17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is contained in the minutes of the proceedings before the Commission. (copy enclosed) The Rolling Hills City Council reviewed the action of the Plan- ning Commission on Monday, January 14, 1985, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Since no action was taken by the Council regarding the front yard variance, the decision of the Plan- ning Commission has been ratified by the City Council, and the en- croachment into the established front yard by the residence addition is approved.. Minutes of the City Council meeting are enclosed. A hearing on your appeal of the decision of the Traffic Com- mission on November 16, 1984, denying your request for a dual driveway access to your property,.will be held by the City Council at the next regular meeting on Monday, January 28, 1985. Please call this office if you have any questions regarding Zoning Case No. 300. Very truly yo June Cunningham Deputy City Clerk copy: George Shaw, AIA [PAUL LAURENCE SAFFO ONE CREST ROAb EAST ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA. 90274 January 27, 1985 To: City Council Members From: Joan Saffo Subject: Item 7 on January 28, 1985 Agenda Belleville appeal of Traffic Commission's Dec One of my favorite views to the Northan.d East of our property is the lovely field andold barn of the only farm left in Rolling Hills. And I believe it is the last of the old farm buildings anywhere on the Peninsula. I probably know this area along Crest as well as anyone knows it. I have occasion to go to Whites at 7 Crest Road East very often -- driving in and out of their driveway which would be more or less opposite the proposednew driveway from Bellevilles. ision We have been' so pleased that the Bellevilles have made such. an effort to preserve both the original farm house and barn.. If anyone else had purchased this property, I am certain that both structures would have been torn down. Also knowing the curve of Crest at this point I d.o not see any traffic problem with the driveway at the proposed. location. Perhaps, the Euc inthe easement just east of their property line could be removed. Othewise I definitely feel the planis ok. I would object to th,e driveway being re -located through "my" beautiful field. This property personifies what we would like to see in rural Rolling Hills. ...(_;\(3.-4 A P.S. Incidentally,/I would like to add there is no personal equation in my approving the Belleville plan. I have met Mr. Belleville only once and. Mrs. Belleville very briefly three times. The property was vacant for some time after the Bellevilles bought it. Frankly, I was worried at that time about the fate of our only historic site... 1 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ E\e\EE?S & P Mr. Joseph P. Leach City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Leach: _,\\EIS Anaheim, Norwalk, Ventura, Lancaster, San Bernardino and San Diego, California January 14, 1985 12 CREST ROAD - SIGHT DISTANCE AT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY As you requested, a study has been conducted of sight distance at a new driveway proposed on a site plan for an addition and remodel at 12 Crest Road. Our study included review of the site plan at the location, field measurements of sight distance at various locations along the frontage of the property and a comparison of the field measurements with accepted traffic engineering guidelines. Our report begins by discussing traffic engineering guidelines for stopping sight distance and then relates them to conditions at 12 Crest Road. Our report concludes with recommendations for consideration regarding the driveway as proposed as well as alternate locations for access to this property. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), an international association of professional engineers, published the second edition of the "Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook" in 1982. This book contains guidelines and suggestions on a variety of transportation and traffic engineering items including stopping sight distance. The enclosed ITE guidelines on this topic are the same as published by others including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", 1984. Stopping sight distance is directly related to vehicle speeds. When examining an existing roadway, the critical or 85th percentile speed is gen- erally used. This value is the speed at which or below 85 percent of the motorists travel. Stopping sight distance is the sum of two distances, brake reaction distance and braking distance. Brake reaction distance is the distance traversed by a vehicle from the instant the driver sights an object necessitating a stop to the instant the brakes are applied. While some studies suggest shorter perception/reaction times, 2.5 seconds is generally used in these calculations as 90% of drivers will react within this time. Braking distance is the distance required to stop the vehicle from the instant brake application begins. Braking distance depends upon pavement condition and friction factors associated with wet roads are generally used in these calculations. Downgrades on a roadway increase the braking distance in proportion to the severity of the slope. 14714 CARMENITA ROAD • SUITE 300 • NORWALK• • CALIFORNIA 90650-5284 • (213) 921-8215 • (714) 523-4702 • • Mr. Joseph P. Leach -2- January 14, 1985 Speeds along this portion of Crest Road were measured by the Los Angeles County Road Department on December 10, 1982, between 10:20 and 11:20 a.m. These measurements, taken in both directions on Crest Road 100 feet east of Georgeff Road, disclosed that the critical or 85th percentile speed was 35 mph. Based upon this speed, 2.5 seconds for brake reaction time, wet road conditions and a downslope of 2%, stopping sight distance has been calculated to be 250 feet. This value has been used in our assessment of sight distance at driveways proposed at 12 Crest Road. When evaluating stopping sight distance at driveways, lines of sight are measured from a point 10 feet behind the edge of pavement in both di- rections along the roadway to a point at which the front bumper of an ap- proaching vehicle becomes visible. Within the area of vision between the sight lines, obstructions to sight distance should be minimized. During our field review you indicated that all trees along the front- age of the property as well as the three -rail Association fence immediately east of the proposed driveway will remain in place. There is a 30" diameter tree approximately 60 feet east of the proposed driveway together with an existing horizontal curve further east on Crest Road. The combination of these factors at the proposed driveway limits sight distance to the east to 180 feet, 70 feet less then the minimum stopping sight distance calculated for conditions. Further, a motorist exiting the proposed driveway would be required to look between the rails of the Association fence. Based upon these factors, construction of the proposed driveway at the location shown on the site plan is not recommended. Sight distance at the existing driveway at the western end of the property is excellent, exceeding 500 feet in both directions. The same sight distance is also available from the area immediately east of the existing driveway. While a second access to the property could occur approximately 100 feet east of the existing driveway location, it appears that on -site cir- culation could be altered and both driveways consolidated. In this regard, a single driveway at either the existing location of access or at a new location approximately 100 feet east of the existing access point, centered in the large gap between existing trees, is recommended. We appreciate the opportunity to conduct this study and to be of service to the City of Rolling Hills. Should you have any questions or should you need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 77:144 Tom Brohard Manager Transportation Engineering Department TWB:kj Enclosure Design vehicle type Minimum turning radius (ft (m)] Minimum inside radius [ft (m)] i c if) 1 L) ut N P 24 (7.3) 14.9 (4.7) SU 42 (12.8) 27.8 (2.7) A -bus 38 (11.6) 21 (6.4) ...' / / \� \ \\\ Path '1 \ \ of left (I front X• 11 wheel / I iH 8.5' WB-50 design semitrailer combination 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Scale in ft �' cy • 46 2 Bus 42 (12.8) 24.0 (7.1) 1 1 Path of right 1 rear wheel 1 Sight distance Stopping sight distance. Sight distance is the length of highway visible to the driver. Sight distance everywhere along a highway should be adequate for all but a few of the fastest drivers to come to a safe stop before reaching an object. Stopping sight distance used for design is the sum of two distances: (1) the distance a vehicle travels after the driver sights an object and begins braking and (2) the dis- tance it travels during braking. The stopping sight distance (SSD) in feet is determined from the formula 30(f ± g) where V = speed from which stop is made, mph P = perception -reaction time, s f = coefficient of friction (for wet pavement used for design) percent of grade divided by 100 (added for upgrade and subtracted for downgrade) 590 Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook g= 172 SSD = 1.47PV + (19.1) 1Lt./ II 11 II I I� II Path of overhang WB-40 40 (12.2) 17.7 (6.1) WB-50 45 (13.7) 16.6 (6.0) W B-60 45 (14.7) 21.4 (6.9) Figure 19.1. Minimum design path of typical de- sign truck (WB-50 design vehicle). (Metric conver- sion factor: multiply value by 0.305 m/ft.) SOURCE: A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways, Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway Officials, 1965, p. 84. If vehicle speed is in km/h, the stopping sight distance in meters is SSD = 0.278PV + (19.2) 225(f ± g) The range of minimum stopping sight distances for high- ways having various design speeds is shown in Table 19- 5. Minimum distances assume that the vehicle is traveling at less than the design speed (the assumed speeds on which the minimum stopping distances are based). Longer dis- tances assume that the vehicle is traveling at the design speed. Stopping sight distance is measured from a "seeing" height of 3.5 ft (1.05 m) to an object height of 0.5 ft (15 cm). Desirable stopping sight distance values should be used for design whenever possible. Stopping sight distance values less than the minimum should never be considered. Decision sight distance. Where conditions encountered by the driver are complex, there is often a need to provide sufficient space for a driver to do more than come to a stop. This space, termed decision sight distance, is defined as the i • Design Speed mph km/h Assumed Speed for Condition mph (km/h) 20 30 20 (30) 30 50 28 (45)-30 (50) 40 65 36 (55)-40 (65) 50 80 44 (70)-50 (80) 60 95 52 (85)-60 (95) 65 105 55 (90)-65 (105) 70 115 58 (95)-70 (115) 75 120 61 (100)-75 (120) 80 130 64 (105)-80 (130) TABLE 19-5 Minimum Stopping Sight Distance on Wet Pavements* Brake Reaction Coefficient Braking of Distance Time Distance Friction, on Level (s) (ft) f (ft) 2.5 73 0.40 33 2.5 103-110 0.35 75-86 2.5 132-147 0.32 135-167 2.5 161-183 0.30 215-278 2.5 191-220 0.29 311-414 2.5 202-238 0.29 348-486 2.5 213-257 0.28 400-583 2.5 224-275 0.28 443-670 2.5 235-293 0.27 506-790 Metric conversion factor: multiply value by 0.305 m/ft. Design Speed mph km/h 30 50 40 65 50 80 60 95 70 115 80 130 TABLE 19-6 Decision Sight Distance* Times (s) Premaneuver Detection and Decision and Recognition Response Initiation 1.5-3 1.5-3 1.5-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Rounded Computed for Design (ft) (ft) 106 120 178-196 200-200 267-314 275-325 376-461 375-475 502-634 525-650 550-724 550-725 613-840 625-850 667-945 675-950 741-1083 750-1100 Decision Sight Distance (ft) Maneuver Rounded (lane change) Summation Computed for Design 4.2-6.5 4.5 10.2-14 449-616 4.2-6.5 4.5 10.2-14 ' 598-821 4.2-6.5 4.5 10.2-14 748-1027 4.7-7.0 4.5 11.2-14.5 986-1276 4.7-7.0 4.0 10.7-14 1098-1437 4.7-7.0 4.0 10.7-14 1255-1643 450-625 600-825 750-1025 1000-1275 1100-1450 1250-1650 *Metric conversion factor: multiply value by 0.305 m/ft. SOURCE: McGee, H. W., Moore, W., Knapp, B. G., and Sanders, J. H. Decision Sight Distance for Highway Design and Traffic Requirements, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Washington, D.C. 1978. distance at which drivers can detect a signal or hazard in a cluttered or visually noisy roadway environment, recog- nize it, and perform the required actions safely. Its values are substantially longer than those for stopping sight dis- tance. Locations where it is desirable to provide decision sight distance are: (1) complex interchanges and intersections; (2) any locations where unusual or unexpected maneuvers are required; (3) any variation in cross sections, such as toll plazas and lane drops; (4) where roadway elements, traffic and signs, signals, and other traffic control devices compete; and (5) areas where an unexpected maneuver may be re- quired. Table 19-6 shows a range of decision sight distances based on most complex situations. In measuring decision sight distance, the 3.5-ft (1.05-m) seated eye height criterion used to measure stopping sight distance is retained. How- ever, the 6-in. (15 cm) object height is not retained and a zero height of object is adopted. Table 19-6 also shows the factors used to compute decision sight distances. Passing sight distance. Passing sight distance is appli- cable only on two-lane, two-way highways. Passing sight distance is the length of highway ahead necessary for one vehicle to pass another before meeting an opposing vehicle which might appear after the pass began. Passing sight dis- TABLE 19-7 Minimum Passing Sight Distances Used for Design Used for Pavement Marking Design Minimum Passing Speed Sight Distance mph km/h ft m 20 30 800 245 30 50 1100 335 40 64 1500 457 50 80 1800 549 60 97 2100 640 65 105 2300 701 70 113 2500 762 75 121 2600 793 80 129 2700 823 8sth Percentile Minimum Passing Speed Sight Distance mph km/h ft 30 40 50 60 70 48 64 80 97 113 500 600 800 1000 1200 152 183 244 305 366 tances used for design, given in Table 19-7, are based on various traffic behavior assumptions.l3 Passing sight distances for purposes of pavement marking are also given in Table 19-7. No -passing zone markings, given in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,14 °"A Policy on Design of Rural Highways." pp. 140-145. Also refer to the new AASHTO policy on rural and urban highways when it is published. "FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.' Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 3B-8. Geometric Design 591 (213) 375-2556 FROM L. A. 772-1555 SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION 304 TEJON PLACE PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CALIFORNIA' 00274 January 10, 1985 Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Belleville #12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: New driveway and improvement to existing driveway per plan prepared by Edward Carson Beall and Associates plan for "Addition and Remodel" dated 10/19/84. RAYMOND L.QUIGLEY DONALD E. DAWSON ROSS N. BOLTON CONSULTING CNOINCERS Dear Mr. and Mrs. Belleville: In accordance with your request to evaluate the traffic safety of the proposed new driveway and the realignment of the existing driveway at the above address, our firm conducted a field investigation of the site on January 7, 1985. The primary consideration of safety of a driveway location is that there is _adequate stopping sight distance. Stopping sight distance is the stopping distance necessary to recognize a problem. while driving, react to this problem, and then stop the vehicle. The stopping sight distance required for a speed of 35 miles per hour (the posted speed limit plus 5 miles per hour) is 238 feet. (From Section 2.5 of the County of Los Angeles Road Department Design Manual). Our investigation confirmed that the sight distance in either direction from both the location of your proposed new driveway and improvement to the existing driveway is more than 240 feet. The proposed driveways comply with accepted standards for a safe location. It should be noted that at the present time, there is no vegetation interfering with the right distance between the proposed new driveway and the curve in the road south of your property. It is our recommendation that the lower trunks of existing trees be kept trimmed, and that no shrubs be planted which would tend to become bush and interfere with sight distance. If you have any questions, or we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION Ross N. Bolton Registered Traffic Engineer No. 1195 RNB: bc' c: George Shaw CHRONOLOGY,. ZONING CASE NO.. 300, PHILIP BELLEVILLE, 12 CREST ROAD EAST Request for Variance of front yard requirements for residence .addition . Public Hearing before Planning' Commission. 7/17/84 Action: Held for field trip Field trip to site. 7/26/84 - referred to Traffic Commission re dual' access . shown on plan. Traffic Commission made a field trip to the site on 8/.17/84; held for further discussion on 8/29/84. '4. Planning Commission meeting 8/28/84 - held on Planning Commission agenda for recommendation from'Traffic Commission re: dual driveway. No action taken by. Planning Commission on request for front yard Variance. Traffic Commission meeting 8/29/84 cancelled at request of Mr. Belleville (requirements of RHCA were unacceptable to him). . Planning Commission meeting 9/18/84 letter requested Zoning Case No. 300 be held to next regular meeting, since applicant is working with Traffic Commission on driveway locations. . Planning. Commission meeting 10/16/84 - no action on request, for front Variance- held for report from Traffic Commission on dual driveway. Traffic Commission meeting..11/16/84 - request for dual driveway denied. Planning Commission meeting 12/18/84 - front yard variance approved. • • 'EDWARD CARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN CONSULTANTS January 2, 1985 City Council City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 re: Dear Members of the Council; Phillip Belleville Lot 192A-1-MS 12 Crest Road East At your meeting of January 14, 1985, you have before you a recommendation from the planning commission for approval of a front yard variance at the above described property. In conjunction with this matter, on behalf of Mr. Ei Mrs. Belleville, we wish to appeal the action of the traffic commission denying a second access driveway to the property and have the council reconsider our original driveway design. Our reasons for this request.are as follows: At our meeting with the traffic commission on November 16, we were told that our driveway design was not approved because 1) The easterly driveway location was not safe and 2) They do not approve second second access driveways unless unusual circumstances are present. When questioned as to what criteria the commission uses to determine what is and what is not a safe driveway location, the commission. admitted that they have no data, only how it "looks" to them. The commission suggested that we contact Sgt. Thomas or deputy Coffee who referred us to the County Road Department, where we talked to A1r. John Squire (213-226-5411) in the Highway Design Department. We were told 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 • (213) 378-9334, 378-1280 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION • City of Rolling Hills January 2, 1985 page two that safe driveway locations are based on safe stopping distance. For 30 M.P.H. speed limit and wet pavement, this would. be 200 feet. We should have a sight line to oncoming traffic of 200 feet. Our design as presented meets that criteria. Further criteria was found in "Data Book for Civil Engineers.- Design:, by Elwyn Seelye, pert- inent copies of which are enclosed. One table for horizontal sight distances at all points on the highway again confirms the 200'feet for 30 M.P.H. A second table.for sights.distances.at.i.ntersactions indicates'.160'feet at 30 M.P.H. Again confirming that the 200 feet plus sight.line of our design is safe. Also note in our design that the driveway is located clear of an association equestrian fence that was built to force horsemen to cross Crest Road at a safe location. The above criteria appears to have been used in establishing how long the fence should be. If it is safe for a 'horse 'fo ente:r Crest Road at that location then it is safe for an automobile. Regarding the Traffic Commissions criteria for approving second.access driveways on a single prop- erty. In searching the City ordinances, we could find nothing that prohibits a second access drive- way. In the' Community Association's 'Design criteria it states "Two. driveway entrances are discouraged". At the request of the'Traffic'Commission, we sub- mitted our plans to the Community Association. It has been reviewed by both the Architectural Committee and the Board of Directors and although they dis- courage two driveways, they felt unusual circumstances of this property of very long frontage, and preserving historical structures' while extending the existing residence made the two driveway designs acceptable. The 'plan before' 'you h'as been' approved by the Board. of Directors of the. Community Association with two 'access 'driveways . If the city had wanted to eliminate two access driveways to a single property, it would have had an ordinance 'so stating. There are many properties in the 'city with two access driveways.' The absence of such an ordinance indicates that two driveways are not prohibited, and the Traffic City of Rolling Hills January 2, 1985 page three Commission should judge each case on what unusual circumstances are present (such as narrow frontage) for them to deny the request and not require un- usual circumstances for approval which is the criteria now being used. Because we are meeting established safety criteria. Because we are not in -%violation. Tof .any .city inances. Because the two access driveway is just plain good site planning, considering the physical char- acteristics of the entire site. We request that you approve the plot plan be- fore you for both the front setback and the two access driveways. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Edward Carson Beall & Associates ALVV6 George C. Shaw, A.I.A. GCS:dh • City opeolling GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor pro tem JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. and Mrs. Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Belleville: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 December 26, 1984 Subject: Zoning Case No. 300. This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance for. reduction of the front yard on Lot 192-A-1-MS, located at 12 Crest Road East, from 137 feet to 90 feet was approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 18, 1984. This notice shall serve as a copy of the decision of the Planning Commission. A formal report of the Planning Commission's action as required by Section.17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is contained in the minutes of the proceedings before the Commission. The Planning Commission's decision will Council at a meeting on Monday, January 14, Council Chambers of the City Hall, pursuant the Municipal Code. Should you have any questions please do this office. JPL/jc be reported to the City 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the to Section 17.32.140 of not hesitate to contact P. Leach City Manager • • EDWARD CARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN CONSULTANTS September 14, 1984 Mr. pan Molendyke, City Manager Rolling Hills Estates City Hall #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 re: Belleville residence 12 Crest Road East zone case #300 Dear Mr. Molendyke, We are currently working with the traffic committee and the Homes Association on driveway locations for the above case. Therefore, we request that this case be held over from the planning commission meeting of September 18, as scheduled, to the next regular meeting. Sincerely, EDWARD CARSON BEALL E ASSOCIATES George C. Shaw A.I.A. GS:.dh c.c. Mr. Phillip Belleville 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 • (213) 378-9334, 378-1280 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION • PHILIP F. BELLEVILLE 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES 90071 August 15, 1984 City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission Traffic Commission c/o June Cunningham and Ron Molendyk 2 Portugese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Planning Commission and Traffic Commission: Geraldean and I have owned 12 Crest Road East for about 10 years. The property was in poor condition then and it got worse with vandalism around 1977. We have steadily since then made quite substantial restorations, always having in mind keeping the historical character of the property in tact. During the years that we have owned 12 Crest East, we have talked to and interviewed numerous architects always searching for a way to improve the property with the type of house it deserves, without distrubing its essential charac- ter. Without exception, until we interviewed Ed Beall, the architects did not appear to have the same feeling for the property that we have and that many other members of the community have. Some of them even wanted to tear down the great old stable. We have now found an architect who has a feel for preserving the historical sense that the property has. He has designed a substantial addition to the old ranch house which will be of the same design and character. In order to lay out the addition without disturbing the stable and other structures, it has turned out to be an "L" shaped addition which will operate to block the existing paved driveway except for access to the garages to be built as a part of the addition. • • City of Rolling Hills August 15, 1984 Page 2 In order to have access to the entrance of the house with the addition, there are limited options available and only one seems satisfactory. The one that has been proposed is to place the main driveway for entrance off Crest Road where our gate is near the south east line of the property. It is designed to run in the same path as the long established ingress and egress that the property has had from that point. We will cooperate fully with you in coming up with a plan so that it will not affect the access to the riding trail. Concerning traffic, you have probably already noted that neighbors on both sides of the road have driveways in the same vicinity and no problems have been apparent to us. Other options would interfere with our plan to perpetuate and restore the historical sense of the property. For example, a driveway designed to enter at or near the gate for the existing paved driveway would need to be routed in front of the house and through a portion of the riding ring area along Crest Road. Preservation of that open area and restoration of one of the oldest riding rings in this community is very important to us and we believe to the community. This is written to express our goals in writing before we attend the August 28 hearing. We know that you will give it sincere consideration. In the meantime, Geraldean and I would be more than willing to exchange further views and explore ideas with you if it would in any way be helpful. You can contact me during the day at 614-8272 and our home phone is 541-5256. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, • Phil pkartd` Ge a dean Belleville 12 Crest RoactJEast Rolling Hills, California 90274