Loading...
577, Encroach into the north side y, Correspondencef • • E .g E [1 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 MAR 0 11999 September 28, 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ms. Peggy Minor Manager Rolling Hills Community Association, No. 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 16-CF (Landscape Committee) Dear Peggy: We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Architecture Committee to discuss the existing trellis in our front yard set -back. We would like to be accompanied by the designer we have been working with on this project, Julie Heinsheimer of Edward Carson Beall, AIA and Associates. Julie has made several changes to the plans, based on recommendations of the Architecture Committee, and will provide the Association with a set of plans prior to the meeting: • Mailbox. The mailbox design integrated into a pilaster has been eliminated. We will install a typical rural metal mailbox mounted on a 4" x 4" post painted white (our current mailbox is this latter rural design). • Grasscrete. For the Grasscrete area circled in red which was approved on January 12,1999, we plan to use "Turf CeI" or "Grass Roads," which has a more lawn -like look than Grasscrete. This area provides access to our trash yard • Trash Yard. A.design for an enclosed trash yard is included in the plans. • Area under trellis. Details regarding paving to be removed under the trellis and planting of a shade garden in this area is included. Only a path wide enough for the refuse workers to access receptacles in the enclosed Trash Yard, but not wide enough for an automobile, will remain. This is to demonstrate our good faith that the trellis is not now used as a car port, and the reduction in width of the paving and installation of landscaping will permanently preclude its future use for that purpose. • Committee's observation that the area of hardscape in the front yard is excessive. We agree! The whole purpose of Julies's design is to reduce hardscape and replace it with landscaping. We want our residence to provide a pleasant face to our neighbors. • • Rolling Hills Community Association February 28, 1999 Page 2 Prior to requesting this meeting with the Landscape Committee, we discussed with Julie Heinsheimer whether or not the trellis is an important part of her overall design. She says that it is. At the time we purchased our residence in 1994, our real estate agent, Cindy Chew of Coldwell Banker checked with the Association to learn if there were any items that were not approved by the Association. In her letter dated July 23, 1994, she made us aware of only two non -conforming items reported to her by the Association (neither of which was the trellis). As a condition of purchase, we required that the Sellers remove planters they had constructed in the road easement, e.g. "concrete, brick, and all vegetation". The other item was resolved by our agreement with the Association to paint the natural wood front doors white. Had the Association alerted us to any problem with the trellis, we could have dealt with that as a condition of purchase, as well. In our variance application to the Planning Commission dated March 7, 1999, we requested that the Variance include "Proposed Construction in the Front Yard Setback, #8. complete the existing trellis by adding cross members." The Planning Commission did not object to this item 8. Sheri and I agree with Julie Heisheimer that the completed trellis, covered with vines, will add to the rural charm of our residence. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss this with the Architecture Committee. Please telephone Sheri or me at (310) 541-3311, or Julie Heinsheimer at (310) 378-1280, when you know the date. Sincerely 71-\ Lyryia' and Sheri Gill Cc: Julie Heinsheimer, Edward Carson Beall, AIA and Associates Lola Unger, City of Rolling Hills Planning Director City o/ leo tins May 20, 1999 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 577 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: . This letter shall serve as official notification that a one-year time extension was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on May_18, 1999 for the subject case. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 99-11, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission. Notethat this approval will expire on June 16,` 2000 and unless you acquire permits before then, under Section 17.46.080(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code you must refile based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Planning Director Printed on Recycled Paper. • EgEllUE Dr. and Mrs. Lynn E. Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 May 12, 1999 MAY 1 21999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Rv Re: Zoning Case No. 577- Extension of Variance approvals to June 16, 2000 Ms. Lola M. Ungar Planning Director 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Ms. Ungar: Thank you for your call to let us know you have received our check for $200 to extend the variance approvals for one year. You requested that I provide the Planning Commission with the reason the extension is required. The variance was approved on June 16, 1998, and we were notified by letter on June 23, 1998. There was a 30-day appeal period before the variance went into effect. The variance had several conditions that required significant time to complete: • Section 9 L- Submit landscape plan, get approval, and post landscape completion bond. Landscape plans had to be prepared in sufficient detail for bond calculation. The plans were provided to the Planning Office, and stamped approved on 9-14-98. • Section 9Q- The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee. After talking with Peggy Minor, we prepared for the Architecture Committee review by listing the design elements to be reviewed, and taking detailed pictures of the property for the Committee to review. A letter requesting review of the plans and pictures by the Committee was sent on October 18, 1998. The Committee reviewed our plans, and requested several design changes to the plans. The plans were redrawn and resubmitted. The Committee scheduled a field trip to view the property on 1-26-99. Everything was approved, except for an as -built trellis that was situated on the property when we purchased it in 1994. Rolling Hills Planninnirector 05/12/99 Page 2 • On February 28, we requested a hearing with the Committee, and Julie Henisheimer and I met with the Committee to discuss the as -built trellis in front of the house, which the Committee wanted us to remove. We met with the Committee in early March 1999. After discussing the pros and cons of the trellis on the esthetics of the property with the Committee, we agreed to remove the trellis and sent a letter to that effect to the Committee on March 20, 1999. We received a letter from the Committee acknowledging acceptance of our letter of agreement, which was the final step in their approval of our plans. The better part of a year was consumed with these approval activities. After the final Architecture Committee approval, we contacted contractors and received bids to complete the improvements. We have accepted the bids and are proceeding with getting necessary permits and completing the work. The project, however, will require several months beyond the June 16, 1999 expiration of the Variance. We respectfully request that the Commission grant us a one year extension of the Variance approval. Sincerely, 7/t4 Lynnnd Sheri Gill • • Dr. and Mrs. Lynn E. Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 May 6, 1999 Ms. Lola M. Ungar Planning Director 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 577 Dear Ms. Ungar: EgEllYE MAY ,4 7 1999 CITY OF 'ROLLING HILLS Thanks for the heads -up on the need to extend of the approvals for zoning case No. 577, which expire on June 16, 1999. Enclosed is check 1224 in the amount of $200 to extend the approvals for one year, to June 16, 2000. We have entered into contracts with John Quinn Pool and Spa, and with Shepherd Construction, to complete the approved construction of the spa, the new driveway, and other hardscaping. Julie Heinsheimer has provided John Quinn with a revised set of plans that comply with the decisions of the Architecture Committee, which was the final condition of the zoning approval. The spa and pool remodeling work that John Quinn will be doing is the first phase of the project. We will appreciate your assistance in having necessary permits issued to John Quinn Pool and Spa. Are permits required for any of the work that Shepherd Construction will be doing (pool decking, barbeque, driveway, entry stairs, stone trim on house)? Sincerely, Lynn and Sheri Gill u,. • `6.• LYNN E. GILL SHARON J. GILL 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD PH. 310-541-3311 ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 MALAGA BANK 2514 ViaTjon • (310) 373-9827 �(�Piallos Verdes Estates, California 90274 MEMO 3222861.20': 0111,0818.000911 1224 90-8612/3222 011108180009 1224 GRAYSMME 1,4 11 Cji O/ /E'OI/tfl 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 May 1, 2000 Dr. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road • Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 577, 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD, ROLLING HILLS Dear Dr. Gill: Thank you for your letter that we received on April 17, 2000 that included a check for $200 which we must return to you. Your letter informed us that you had been working out of town for much of the year and had also been ill for several months. .We are sorry for your infirmities. ;The Planning Commission granted approvals for the previously constructed illegal retaining walls at your property on June 16, 1998 with certain conditions that included obtaining building permits • for previously illegally constructed retaining walls as described in the attached Resolution No: 98-12. A one-year time extension was granted on May 18, 1999. At this time, your approvals will expire on June 16, 2000 and unless you acquire permits before then,. under Section 17.46.080(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code you must refile based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit. Under Paragraph 3 of Section 17.46.080(B) of the Municipal Code, a second extension is allowed beyond the second anniversary date of the original approval, if it is granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project in the public hearing. In order to file for the second extension, the request must be submitted to City Hall prior to the expiration date of the case. If the expiration date passes while the request is pending, permits will not be issued unless the request is approved. Requests for extensions submitted after the expiration date cannot be accepted and a new application must be filed. In either case, the determination of the Planning Commission or the City Council on appeal, will take place in a public hearing. The application fee for a second extension fee is 2/3rds of the original application fee plus the extension of time fee of $200. In your case, that would be ($966.67 + $200.00) $1,166.67. We will also need new application forms, plans, and a new property owner's address list since our existing list is more than two years old. Your other option, of course, is to obtain the appropriate permits for the retaining walls and commence compliance with the conditions of approval prior to the deadline .of June 16, 2000. In addition, we have been informed by District Engineering Associate Rafael Bernal that a spa permit will expire on June 23, 2000. P ririted on Recycled Paper. • We urge you to give these matters your immediate attention. Feel free to call me at (310) 377- 1521. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning Direcfor cc: City Manager Craig Nealis District Engineering Associate Rafael Bernal Attachment: Resolution No. 98-12 Check No. 1311 • • o 90 e / ie0i.iny JUL April 26, 1999 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 577 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: This letter shall serve as official notification that the Preliminary Landscape Plan for bond calculation for Zoning Case No. 577 has been APPROVED and we have received the landscape bond in the amount of $ 2,842.80. We would also like to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 577. Approvals will expire on Tune 16,1999. 'You ° can extend approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Lola M. Ungar Planning Director Printed on Recycled Paper. Dr. and Mrs. Lynn E. Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 April 13, 2000 Ms. Lola M. Ungar Planning Director 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zoning Case Number 577-Resolution 99-11 Dear Ms. Ungar: 1) 73 APR 1 7 2000 C;'(T' "OF "ROLLING RILLS Thank you for your telephone call regarding the approvals for zoning case No. 577, the extension of which (Resolution 99-11) expire on June 16, 2000. As you know, we obtained permits for the necessary on -going construction. After scheduling the work with the contractors, we commenced completion of the construction. I was working with a client, DaimlerChrysler, in Detroit for much of the year, and was alsoincapacitated for several months with a bronchial/sinus bacterial infection. Nevertheless, all of the construction and a majority of the plantings have been completed. There are a few loose ends: 1. The plantings on the bank and those that obscure the walls are still quite immature. I'd like to have a few months of warm weather so that the plantings can fill in. 2. I know I have final inspection approvals from the HomeOwners Association, but need to verify with the contractors that they have finals from the County. 3. We still need to deal with the permits for the as -built retaining walls. 4. We will be out of the country from April 16 to May 14. 5. I'd like to schedule a meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss a few issues, after we return on May 14. Since it appears that the lapse of the approvals on June 16, 2000 would make things quite tight, it may be necessary for us to extend the approvals for one year. I have enclosed a check for $200 to extend the approvals for one year, to June 16, 2001. Sincerely, v't / - Lynn Gill 7EgEOVE MAR 2 3 1999 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RV Ms. Lola M. Ungar, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 March 20, 1999 Re: Zoning Case No. 577, Dear Ms. Ungar: Enclosed is a copy of a letter to the Community Association, in which we agree to remove a trellis in the front yard set -back that was there when we purchased the property in 1994. That is the final step in the approval process with the Architecture Committee, as they have approved the other features of the plan. Julie Heinsheimer is having final changes made to the plans, based on our agreement with the Community Association. I will have a set of plans delivered to your office for final plan check and approval. I will also arrange for a landscape bond for the amount $2,842.80 in accordance with resolution No. 98-12 (September 14, 1998 letter). After we complete these last details, I will arrange to come by your office to determine which of the features of the plan will require permits. Thank you for guiding us through this process. We look forward to completing and enjoying our revamped landscaping of our property. Sincerely, Ly d Sharon Gill Cc. Rolling Hills Community Association Julie Heinsheimer, Edward Carson Bea11 'AIA and Associates • a 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 March 20, 1999 Ms. Peggy Minor Manager Rolling Hills Community Association No. 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 16-CF (Landscape Committee) Dear Peggy: Julie Heinsheimer of Edward Carson Beall, AIA and Associates and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Architecture Committee on March 2 to discuss the existing trellis in the front yard set -back. At the meeting, committee members provided us with their rationale for removing the trellis, and gave us advice on other landscaping options for that area. After carefully considering the advice given us by the architect members of the committee, we believe that they have proposed a better solution than the trellis would provide. Therefore, as a part of our front yard landscape remodel, we agree to remove the trellis as recommended by the Architecture Committee. We plan to remove the trellis and the paving under the trellis, and extend the "Turf Cel" or "Grass Roads," product into that area to provide access to our trash yard. We agree with the Committee that this treatment will open up the area and provide the perspective that the residence is farther from the street. Juli will have the plans modified to reflect these changes. As next steps, we will provide a revised set of plans to the Association and to the City for final plan check. Sincerely Lyn and Sheri Gill Cc: Julie Heinsheimer, Edward Carson Beall, AIA and Associates Lola Unger, City of Rolling Hills Planning Director • 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 January 2, 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CAy Ms. Peggy Minor, Director Rolling Hills Community Association 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 00@EHE JAN 0 6 1999 Re: Architectural Review Committee Review of Project 16-CF (Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-12) Dear Peggy: Sheri and I would like to thank the Architecture Committee for its prompt response to our letter dated October 18, 1998, requesting Committee review of our landscaping plan. We are moving along with our plans to start the landscaping construction. The following is a summary of a few open issues with the Committee: Brick decking around spa (Page 3, Photo 2)- New brick decking around spa will be at same level as the adjacent decking.. • Mailbox- Mailbox °will be typical rural metal box design mounted on 4" by 4" post painted white. • Light fixtures- Light fixtures on pilasters will be submitted for approval when we have selected a design • Driveway paving (Page 1, Photo 1)- The Committee requested a sample of the proposed new driveway paving. Sawcut poured concrete is called out on the plans. Edging will be Lompoc Ledger. Please let us know what type of sample is requested so that we can comply. We request that the Committee reconsider one item on the plan (Page 2, Photo 2). There was a trellis structure on the property when we purchased it in 1994. This trellis was referred to in the materials from the Committee as an "unpermitted carport." However, the area under the trellis is not used by us as a carport. The cement paving beneath the trellis provides access to the trash enclosure by the rubbish collectors. For that reason, Grasscrete was specified on the plans to permit the rubbish collectors to drive across the grassy area connecting the reduced -in -size driveway and the paving leading to the trash enclosure: • • 31 Chuckwagon Road Page 2 We have discussed alternatives with the designer, Julie Heinsheimer of Edward Carson Beall, AIA and Associates. There is another product that permits driving across a grassy area which looks more lawn -like than Grasscrete. It is a moulded plastic cell product called "Turf Cel" or "Grass Roads." These landscaping products are widely used in Rolling Hills landscaping. Julie can provide the Committee with some example locations, if needed. Regarding our request to complete the existing uncompleted trellis, if this trellis could be covered with potato vines or grapevines, it would screen a rather unattractive area from view from the street. We would like to complete the trellis by installing cross -members to support vines. To prevent use of the paving under the trellis as a carport, while still providing the rubbish collectors with a path to the trash enclosure, we propose cutting out planting areas along the sides (next to the house, and next to the wall). A person would then have to step out of a car into landscaping, which would discourage its use as a carport by future owners. Please coordinate any questions about the modified design recommendations with our landscape consultant, Juli Heinsheimer. Sincerely, Lyn li and Sheri Gill cc. Lola Unger, City of Rolling Hills Planning Director Julie Heinsheimer, Edward Carson Beall, AIA and Associates • • 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 July 17, 1998 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zoning Case #577 Dr. & Mrs. Lynn E. Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Request to re -consider condition to modify northern -most retaining wall from stepped design to sloped design Dear Honorable Commissioners: I conducted an informal review of retaining wall designs in the immediate vicinity of our residence on Chuckwagon Road, to determine whether such walls tend to have a stepped or sloped design. I constrained my review to the areas where I take my morning walk (Chuckwagon and Bowie Roads), and on Eastfield Road from Chuckwagon Road to the Eastfield gate, which I regularly travel on my way in and out of Rolling Hills. I conclude that the majority of such walls in the vicinity of our residence follow the stepped wall design. I observed two new walls on two different properties on Eastfield Road under construction with the stepped wall design. I conclude from my review that the stepped wall design is in the clear majority. I have enclosed pictures of examples of these stepped walls. I understand the rationale for requiring us to modify the southern -most retaining wall from a stepped to a sloped design. This will lower the wall entirely below the three rail white fence adjacent to the property line. However, in the hearing I believe that the northern wall was thrown in on an afterthought, and that a similar rationale does not exist for requiring that this wall be modified from the current stepped to a sloped wall design. Rather, I believe that there are compelling reasons not to modify the northern -most wall: 1. The stepped design of the wall is to me a more pleasing and logical design. The wall steps down the slope in an orderly and regular mathematically regular manner. It mirrors the design of the lower portion of the step railing which are required for safety purposes. I think that a sloped wall would be less attractive. Since both kinds of retaining walls (stepped and sloped) are common in the area, it clearly is a matter of personal preference. Planning Commission Zoning Case #577 page 2 2. The stepped wall design provides for planting pockets which the landscape designer recommends due to the steepness of the slope. The planting pockets will prevent slope erosion and encourage growth of the covering vegetation. 3. The northern -most wall is in the rear of our property and cannot be viewed from other Rolling Hills properties (versus the example walls which can be viewed from the street). The neighboring property to the north is situated about 15 feet lower than our property. To the east, the closest property is across George F Canyon in Rancho Palos Verdes, and the wall can't be seen without the aid of heavy binoculars. 4. In any event, the landscape plan provides for vegetation to cascade over the wall, obscuring the shape. hereby request that the Commission re -consider the condition that we modify the northern -most wall from a stepped to a sloped design. Sincerely, Viotti • •Cu o Jh/t I► v �s • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com July 14,1998 Mr. John O. Schuricht, President Palos Verdes Engineering 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 130 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL ADVICE - 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER #2391 Dear Mr. Schuricht: This letter is to request your cooperation with your existing and future clients with respect to making sure that they obtain all required City approvals and grading and building permits for structures built in the City of Rolling Hills. This request stems from a recent experience with your client, Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill. As you know, the Gills, located at 31 Chuckwagon Road, constructed retaining walls without benefit of City required Variances and building permits. During the process of obtaining City approval of the structures, you maintained that the construction of the illegal walls and retaining walls were necessary due to slope failure after the walls were constructed. As we explained, the property owners were in violation of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.04.010 and Los Angeles County Building Code Section 301(a) (Permits Required). Also, according to Section 17.16.150 (Structures and driveways permitted within required yards and easements), required yards shall be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for certain exceptions. According to Section 17.12.190, "'Structure' means a combination of materials assembled in a form for use, occupancy or ornamentation whether installed on, above or below the surface of land or water and requiring a fixed location or attached to something having a fixed location. "Structure" shall also include fences, retaining walls, latticework and garden walls." Printed on Recycled Pape? • • Following City stop work orders and after the walls were constructed, the applicants made application for Variances in March, 1998. The City's approval requires certain conditions and modifications to the walls by the applicants. These include requiring building permits to be obtained from the City and the County, that certain walls be removed, that the height of some walls be reduced to a height of 5 feet, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet, and that the upper edges of all walls be smooth and not jagged. Please advise and inform your present and future clients that the use and location of all proposed structures within the City of Rolling Hills are required to be reviewed by the Planning Department to determine planning, zoning and building and safety requirements and to obtain required City and County building permits. We are enclosing a copy of the "Planning Process Guide for the Residents of Rolling Hills, Permits -Approvals, Don't Go to Work Without Them!" for your reference. As we take these matters seriously, we are also forwarding this letter to the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors to keep for their files. Please let us know if you are preparing any other plans for construction within the City of Rolling Hills and whether there is any information that you need and we will be happy to provide assistance. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, LOLA UNGA PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: City Council Planning Commission Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Ms. Lata Thakar and Mr. Rafael Bernal, L.A. County Department of Public Works, Building and Safety Division, Lomita office Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill • C1iy ogee S Jh/t, CERTIFIED MAIL June 23, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 577, 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD (LOT 16-CF) RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on June 16, 1998 approving a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to authorize the retention with modifications of previously illegally constructed retaining walls and approving a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to authorize the retention with modifications of previously illegally constructed retaining walls at a single family residence at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 577. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission was reported to the City Council on June 22, 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 or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) 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. 98-12, 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: Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 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 UNGA PLANNING DIRECTOR ENC: RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. RECORDING REQUEST 31) 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 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). AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING CASE NO.552 ) §§ 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: 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD (LOT 16-CF). ROLLING HILLS 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.552 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT a I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Print Owner Owner Name Name Signature Signature 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 • • " Wiefr 4 RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 577. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill with respect to real property located at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback, requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed retaining walls and a barbecue that encroach into the south side yard setback and requesting a Variance to authorize the construction of a trellis that will encroach into the front yard setback. During the hearing process, the request for the trellis that would encroach into the front yard setback was withdrawn. Section 2. In October, 1997, it came to the attention of the City that retaining walls were being constructed on the subject property without benefit of building permits and the City called Dr. Lynn Gill. On October 24, 1997, Dr. Gill visited City Hall to review 1988 plans for the site. On Monday, October 30, 1997, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate, issued a "Stop Work Order" regarding the retaining walls that required engineering and ordered the work stopped. On November 17, 1997, staff received a letter from Dr. Gill describing the sequence of events that prompted him to build the illegally constructed retaining walls and wherein the Gills concluded that in order for the former owners Mr. and Mrs. Michele Migliaccio to have beenissued a building permit in 1988, all City and County requirements for retaining walls would have had to be met and therefore, they did not pursue the matter further with the City or the County and requested guidance regarding the necessary documents to file in order to be in compliance with the regulations of the City, Community Association and the County. On December 1, 1997, Mr. John O. Schuricht, Structural Engineer, Palos Verdes Engineering, informed the City of the rationale for the design of the retaining walls due to slope failure. The City notified the Gills by letter on. December 29, 1997, that the new retaining walls were constructed illegally and subject to review by the Planning RESOLUTION NO. 9& 12 PAGE 1 OF 7 Commission because Variance approvals expire within one year from the effective date of approval, the illegally constructed retaining walls encroach into the side yard setbacks and that a Variance and a building permit are required. On January 20, 1998, staff received a letter from Dr. Gill regarding his understanding of the Variance and building permit requirements. On February 5, 1998, staff informed Dr. and Mrs. Gill of the need for an application and plans for the retaining walls. The Gills submitted a Variance application on March 9, 1998. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1998, April 21, 1998, and May 19, 1998, and at a field trip visit on March 28, 1998. The applicant was 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 affecting said project, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said project. Concerns expressed by Commissioners, concerned residents and the applicants focused on the unauthorized construction of the retaining walls, the unauthorized completion of the retaining walls, the walls surrounding the pool equipment area, and the heights, appearance, and locations of the retaining walls. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 5 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305 (Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to authorize an encroachment into the north side yard setback to allow the retention and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to ten (10) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard setback. The two walls are of variable height, 3 feet maximum, and conjoin at the lower level of the side yard setback. The upper wall is 105 feet long and the lower wall is 75 feet long. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and the previously constructed illegal retaining walls are located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and away from the street. RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 PAGE 2 OF 7 • • B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because there was minimum grading to construct the previously constructed illegal retaining walls on this irregular shaped lot, drainage will be controlled on the property, and there will not be any greater incursion into the side yard than what already exists on other properties in the same vicinity. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The existing retaining walls will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east inside the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, the uneven tops of the walls will be smoothed, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 577 to allow an encroachment into the north side yard setback to authorize the retention of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to ten (10) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated June 5, 1998, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution. Section 7.. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the retention and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to twenty (20) feet and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach up to seven (7) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard setback. The two walls are of variable height, 5 feet maximum. The upper wall is 30 feet long and the lower wall is 43 feet long, 30 feet of which runs along the southern property line. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and the existing retaining wall is located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and away from the street. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because there was minimum grading to construct the previously constructed illegal retaining walls on this irregular shaped lot and drainage will be controlled on the property, RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The modified retaining wall will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east within the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, the uneven tops of the walls will be smoothed, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 577 to allow the retention and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to twenty (20) feet and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach up to seven (7) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard setback as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated June 5, 1998, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution. Section 9. The Variance to allow an encroachment into the north side yard setback to authorize the retention of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach into the side yard setback approved in Section 6 and the Variance to allow an encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the retention and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach into the side yard setback approved in Section 8 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated June 5, 1998, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approvals that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; 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. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. Any retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. E. The uneven top upper edge of all retaining walls shall be a continuous smooth line and without jagged inclines or declines along the length of the wall. F. The east and south pool equipment walls shall be removed. RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 PAGE 4 OF 7 G. The uneven top line of the southernmost retaining walls shall be modified so as to reduce the wall and be parallel to the slope and slightly below the topmost fence rail of the neighbor's adjacent 3-rail fence. H. Plans shall be modified to reflect the requirements of Paragraphs D, E, F, and G of this Section. I. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. J. Additional landscape screening shall be planted to obscure the eastern faces of the retaining walls and the pool equipment area. K. Landscape screening for the eastern faces of the retaining walls and the pool equipment area shall be maintained so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the retaining walls and the pool equipment area. L. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and 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 consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to 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 Manager after the Planning Commission determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. M. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 16.7% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 35.8%. N. Disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 35.8%. O. Review and approval of a site drainage plan by the City Engineer shall be obtained for the drainage and the retaining walls. P. A plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review prior to the submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check. RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 PAGE 5 OF 7 • • Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the drainage plan. R. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for site drainage plan review and building permits must conform to the development plan described at the beginning of this section (Section 9). S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance approvals pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. T. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 16 OF , 1998. Xc ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN }RN DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 PAGE 6 OF 7 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-12 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 577. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16, 1998 by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Roberts. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Witte None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices MARILYN KE .1'` th ) , DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 PAGE 7 OF 7 • • 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 PIanning 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 ROWNG HMS ZONING MAY 34, 1993 • 17.34.030 C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mali), 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 1730.030 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 1734 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. ROLLING HILLS ZONING 77 MAY 34.1993 • 1 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 78 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24.1993 SENDER: • 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 permit. ■ Write'Refum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. • ■The Retum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: fir. Mrs - slytlrr7 G; // 0> W 31 Chtte.12-zoQ pll,r>S . z .C. jj/O. S7'7 cc 5.Received S la d Na'm1. ei )J 6 nature: (Addressee gel a. I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered Certified ❑ Express Mail 0 Insured ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD 7. Date o Delivery_ n' 8. Addressee's Address(Oly if requested and fee is paid) corm 3811, December 1961 102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Receipt Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE • Print your name, address, aI Ie11. First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 64 knits JUN 3 0 1998 CITY OF ROLLING Hf 11SY OF ROLUNG FILLS #2 PORTUGUESE BENDvROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 111(1111i If 11111111111111 fi 111111111111 t!{Il11l'1 I M 111111111 ,ter•,-�..P.,�.—..,a. Certified Fee ISpecial Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee lReturn Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered N co R. d' Mge a Postmin owirig to whom, 1 f Delivery es P 852 865 264 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to 'I7r,,c-Yl1vs, aii yk,h a,l! reef and N . /1/ �J - 1 • ( .f.`� pia ',, ,•I State and ZIP Code t/ri� fUA (>19 .7�v277 Postage _/ SA q, 1,3S /•/O lab co a. II III I III IIiyII IIIIIIIII f II VI STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE, CERTIFIED MAIL FEE, AND CHARGES FORANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES. (see front) 1. If you want this receiptpostniarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address leaving the receipt attached -and present the article at a post office service window or hand it to your rural carrier. (no extra charge):: 2. If you db not want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address of the article,: date; detach,and retain the receipt, and mail the article. 3. If.you want.a teturn'receipt, write the certified mail number and your name and address on a return receipt card,' Form 3811, and attach it to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends if space per- mits. Otherwise, affix-tgback of.article. Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED `adjacent to the number.::.,. 4. If you.wantdelive„3riestricted to the addressee, or to an authorized agent of the addressee, endorse RESTRICTED DEUY.ERY on the front of the article. ;,5.. Enter fees for the sergices requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt. If return receipt is requested, check the applicable blocks in item 1 of Form 3811. 6: ,Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry. U.S.G.P.O. 1987-197-722 C1i Rolling s 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 May 20, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 577, Request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback and request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the south side yard setback for property at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on May 19, 1998 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request for a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit previously constructed retaining walls and to approve a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit previously constructed retaining walls at a single family residence in Zoning Case No. 577 and shall be confirmed in the draft resolution that is being prepared. The Planning Commission will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your application at that subsequent meeting. The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you before being signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) 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. The Planning Commission's action taken by resolution approving the development application is tentatively scheduled for June 16, 1998. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be placed as a report item on the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on June 22, 1998. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR Printed on Recycled Paper. • 3/ 29 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 2ECE MAY 1 8 1998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Rolling Hills Planning Commission w,_ 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Commissioners: May 17, 1998 I am the neighbor that lives to the south of the Gill's property. Lynn Gill has discussed the Commission's proposed changes to his slope remediation work with me. I am writing to provide my input regarding the work the Gill's recently completed and the Commission's proposal. About six month's ago, Lynn Gill contacted me to discuss work they were planning to have done to correct slope slippage problems on their property. Lynn showed me preliminary engineering plans, and we discussed what needed to be done in the area adjacent to my property. Since our residence is located up -slope of the Gill's, water run- off from my property drains onto the Gill's slope. The engineer's recommendation was to channel water from my property down the slope into the canyon by installing a low retaining wall on the Gill's property next to my north property line, and installing a drainage swale next to the wall on my property. The water from my property now stays on my property until it runs into the canyon. We also discussed the best way to reinstall the three rail fence along my north property line. Since most of the posts of the old fence had rotted off, we decided to lag -bolt the new posts directly to the Gill's wall. The retaining wall is lower than our three rail fence, so that it is for the most part hidden by the fence. The Gill's have indicated that they plan to plant bougainvillea and other cascading plant that will grow over the retaining walls. Iviost of the improvements the Gill's made are out of sight from our residence. We can see the walls only when we walk down to our corral, and we think it is a big improvement over what was there before. Lynn Gill has showed me their landscape plans which we think will be attractive, and the landscaping already installed is a big improvement. Our recommendation to the Commission would be to grant the Gill's variance as built: 1. We see no benefit from moving the retaining wall 5 feet to the north. In fact, it would undo what we accomplished, which is to keep runoff from my property on my property as it runs down the slope. The un-retained area it would open up would be a problem for both of us. We think that the work the Gill's completed to stabilize their slope benefits us as well, by contributing to the overall stability of the slope. Page 2 2. We have no problem with the height of the pool enclosure walls or any other walls. We appreciate having the Gill's pool equipment out of view. The walls are a neutral color and blend in with the natural adobe color. The pool enclosure is hidden behind an orange tree on the Gill's property and lemon trees on our property. A yucca grove is re-establishing itself next to the pool enclosure on our property, which will further obscure the wall from our side. The bougainvillea the Gill's plan to train over the pool equipment will be an attractive addition, as well. In summary, I believe that the Gill's acted properly to protect their property by repairing their slope and protecting it from additional slope damage. The improvements appear to be logically designed and well constructed. The Gill's consulted us throughout the project to make sure thour needs were being met. Sinc LY 29 Chuckwagon Road • • • • ULA PALOS • A= VERDES ® Engineering 27520 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 130 Rolling Hills Estates California 90274 pvec@earthlink.net 310 541 5055 Civil and Structural Consulting 310 541 0321 FAX May 1, 1998 Ms. Lola M. Ungar Planning Director City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: DESIGN OF WALLS AND LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENTS AT 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD PVEC #: 2-97-0380 Dear Ms. Ungar: Lynn Gill forwarded your letter dated April 23, 1998 on to me for my review, and requested that I explore alternative designs that would comply with the request of the Planning Commission. He also requested that I assess the impact the Commission's proposed changes would have on the slope remediation work that has been completed. This is my assessment of the Planning Commission's request for revised plans. REVIEW OF THE SITUATION IMPACTING THE SLOPE REMEDIATION SOLUTION When we initially inspected the Gill's property in July 1997, we observed soil failures of the slope between the upper and lower pads. The most severe soil slumping had occurred next to wooden steps located immediately adjacent to the south property line. We observed that a trench had been cut below the grade of the slope, parallel to the south property line, in which the wooden steps were located. We also observed that a three-inch diameter perforated drain ran along the surface of the trench from top to bottom of the slope. We also observed: • a crack parallel to the slope in the swimming pool, • cracks in the brick patio adjacent to the barbecue, • substantial cracking of the cement slab at the top of the slope, immediately adjacent to the retaining wall constructed in 1988 on the upper pad next to the south property line, • undermining of the slab at the top of the slope immediately adjacent to the south property line • Undermining of the pool.decking adjacent to the slope. L7 PALOS kr- VERDES AIM Engineering Planning Director City of Rolling Hills May 1, 1998 Page 2 of 5 The Gill's residence and pool is constructed on a pad ("upper pad") graded for that purpose when the residence was built in 1958. The terrain slopes from south to north down Chuckwagon Road, and from west to east from Chuckwagon Road toward George F Canyon. The Craig property is to the south of the Gill's property, and is sited about 15 feet higher on a pad graded for that purpose when the Craig's residence was constructed. Water runoff from the Craig's property therefore runs north and east onto the Gill's property in the area of the slope along the Gill's south property line. • In our opinion, the unsupported slope, the greater than 2:1 grade of the slope, and water being perked into the slope from the perforated drain and run-off from the Craig's property to the south contributed to an unstable slope situation. Slope failure was most severe in the area immediately adjacent to the south property line, in the area where the Commission has proposed that the Gill's move presently installed retaining walls located adjacent to the south property line to a new location 5 feet from the property line. The design for remediation of the problem area adjacent to the south property line between the ;upper and lower pad is a "structural box" which integrates a landscape wall averaging 2 feet in height along the perimeter of the upper pad, a 5 foot 8 inch high wall behind the pool equipment which retains the slope at less than 2:1 grade, the wall of a new brick stairway averaging 1 '/2 feet in height which connects the upper and lower walls, and a wall averaging 3.1 feet in height adjacent to the southern property line which also connects the upper and lower walls and closes the structural box. As was featured in the nightly TV news related to El Nino, a problem sometimes experienced by retaining walls is thatthe lateral forces of earth movements cause the walls to tilt outward. This structural box design provides great structural strength and stability by tying the upper and lower walls with rebar steel into two buttressing walls running from, the base of the slope to the upper pad, forming the structural box. The two up -slope side walls brace and anchor the upper and lower walls firmly in place, reducing the probability of the retaining walls tilting outward. Perforated three-inch diameter drains are installed behind the upper and lower walls, wrapped in filter fabric and gravel. A new four -inch diameter solid drain is installed from the upper pad to the lower pad area adjacent to the southern property line providing drainage for the upper pad without perking water into the slope. This improved drainage will also help stabilize the problem area. • • Q!,! PALOS VERDES Cr/• Engineering Planning Director City of Rolling Hills May 1, 1998 Page 3 of 5 I have inspected the Gill's property after the recent heavy El Nino rains. I observed soil erosion on the Craig's slope that drains onto the Gill's property along the south property line. Water coming down the slope from the Craig's property is now channeled into a concrete swale covered with coarse gravel to the south of the retaining wall along the property line. This swale carries water down the steepest part of the slope to the corral area and into the canyon without observable erosion. The four -inch diameter drain buried along the south property line drains the Gill's upper pad. There is a rock water dissipater at the end of the swale and four -inch drain. EVALUATION OF THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED PLAN REVISIONS The following is our assessment and recommendations regarding the revisions that were proposed by the Commission in its April 23 letter: 1. Modify or remove the lowest (easternmost) pool equipment wall so that it does not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more that 21/2 feet high. The pool enclosure screening walls are presently 9.34 feet in total length and 5' 6" high. Counting the access door openings, the pool enclosure walls average 2.41 feet high. For aesthetic reasons, the pool enclosure walls are the same height as the east structural wall supporting the stairway landing. The top course of blocks below the cap of the pool enclosure walls does not serve a structural purpose. The screening wall could be reduced 8" by removing the top course, the tradeoff being the overall aesthetics of the structure. The design requirements for the east stairway landing support wall are discussed below. Lynn Gill has provided you with a summation of wall lengths and heights in the project indicating that all the walls average less than 2'/2 feet high. 2. Modify all other retaining and pool equipment walls so that they do not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more that 2 1/2 feet. Frequently, two building code sections or local City requirements may be in conflict with each other. That is, by complying with one code the second one -must be compromised. The common practice is that the code that is mandated for safety or property protection reasons takes precedence. I LTA PALOS VERDES KAI= Engineering Planning Director City of Rolling Hills May 1,1998 Page4of5 There are two wall heights in this project that were determined following this general principle: East wall (six feet in length) supporting the stairway landing. The 5' 6" height of this structural wall that supports the stair landing is determined by the building code that requires steps to have 6'/2 inch risers and 11 1/2 inch treads. The building code therefore determined how many steps were required to get from the upper to lower pads. This in turn determined the height the landing had to be above grade. There is a 20" safety rail or sill around the south and east sides of the landing. Taking all of this into consideration resulted in an east wall that needed to be 5' 6" high. Reducing the safety rail around the landing by 8" (height of one block) would constitute a safety violation and would invoke a liability risk for the Gill's and for the City, if the City requires that the safety rail be reduced in height. We do not recommend reducing the height of this east wall supporting the stairway landing. Wall behind the pool equipment (eighteen feet in length) that retains the slope to a required less than 2:1 grade. The slope behind the pool equipment and adjacent to the south property line was quite steep prior to remediation. Codes require that slopes have a grade of less than 2:1 for slope stability. In order to have a slope in this area of less than 2:1 grade and a garden wall of less than three feet in height along the perimeter of the upper pad, the retaining wall behind the pool equipment had to be 5' 8". The soil is 6" below the top of the wall, so that removing one 8" course from the top of the wall would mean that the soil would be at the top of the wall, or that the grade of the slope would be greater than 2:1. We do not recommend reducing the height of this retaining wall. Even with these two walls (totaling 24 linear feet) a few inches higher than five feet to comply with building codes, the average height of the walls in the project are Tess than 2'/2 feet high. 3. Modify retaining walls and pool equipment walls at the southeast so that they are at least 5 feet from the property line This would require demolishing a five foot section of the retaining wall behind the pool and a five foot section of the retaining wall at the top of the slope, and demolishing the retaining wall connecting these two walls and re -constructing it five feet north. On the enclosed plan, the new walls VA PALOS n= VERDES KA= Engineering Planning Director City of Rolling Hills May 1, 1998 Page 5 of 5 proposed by the Commission are shown in orange and the demolished walls are shown in yellow. The five-foot wide area adjacent to the property line is the area that was experiencing the greatest slope instability. Making these revisions proposed by the Commission would in effect return this part of the slope to the pre-remediation unstable state. We believe that this would dramatically increase the Gill's risk of damage to their property. It would also subject the City to liability, if they require the Gill's to undo this remediation work designed to protect their property and there is subsequent slope failure. We do not recommend that the City require these modifications of the remediation structures. The portion of the wall adjacent to the south property line that screens the pool enclosure is not essential to the structural box designed to stabilize the slope. It is there to screen the pool equipment from view. Therefore, the south wall of the pool equipment enclosure could be moved five feet to the north without impacting the integrity of the structural box. The Gill's have indicated that this additional pool enclosure space is required for equipment related to a proposed spa, so that moving the wall would mean that space for spa equipment would need to be provided elsewhere. Spa equipment logically needs to be adjacent to the existing pool equipment because pumps and filters are shared between the pool and the spa. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to telephone. Also, I will be available at the hearing on May 19 to discuss any of this with the Commissioners. Very truly yours, PALOS VERDES ENGINEERING CORPORATION Jd1in O. Schurichtident ructural Engineer 2391 cc. Lynn Gill APR-26-1998 08:53 LYNN GILL 310 541 6948 P.01 • • FAX Lynn E. Gill, Ph.D. (310)541-3311 FAX (310)541-6948 To: John Schuricht, Structural Engineer Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation Fax Number: (310) 541-0321 Date: 5-25-98 Subject: PVEC # 2-97-0380 RH Zoning Case # 577 cc. Rolling Hills Planning Director Dear John, Attached is a letter dated April 23, 1998 outlining a request by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission to review revised plans at the next Commission meeting on May 19, 1998. I'd appreciate it if you could evaluate their request and assess the impact the proposed changes would have on the slope failure remediation work we completed. Do you see any alternative designs that would protect the slope from further slumping that comply with their request? I measured the length and height of every wall section today (actually counted blocks!). Attached is my calculation of the average height of the walls —we come in just under the required 2.5 foot average height. Items 1-3 of the following is where I need your help: 1.. Pool equipment walls- I could take off one course of blocks off the pool enclosure walls if I have to. The pool enclosure wall heights are the same as the retaining wall for the stairs for aesthetic reasons. The height of the stairway retaining wail was determined by the riser design codes (Section Q, notes1 and 2). 2. Other retaining and pool equipment wall heights- The height of the retaining wall at the back of the pool equipment is determined by the code requirement of a less than 2:1 slope (Section Y, note 3). Any thoughts? 3. Modify retaining walls and pool equipment walls so they are 5' from the property line. This gives me heartburn, as this is the slope area that experienced the greatest instability. Can you think how this could be accomplished without destroying the integrity of the remediation design? Five feet of the pool enclosure walls that are not retaining could go, but what's the point? That area is also required for planned spa equipment. r.{ APR-26-1998 08:53 LYNN GILL 310 541 6948 P.02 • Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation 04/25/98 Page 2 4_ Landscape plan. A design that "plants out" the walls has been completed by the landscape firm we are working with, Ed Beall and Associates. I'll telephone and set up a time for you to come out and review the site and plans with me. The Planning Commission has requested plan revisions by May 8, 1998. If possible, I'd appreciate it if you could attend the meeting with me on May 19 at 7:30 PM to explain your recommendations to the Commission. Regards, APR-26-1998 08:53 LYNN GILL 310 541 694E P.03 • WALL CALCULATIONS 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD ZONING CASE NO. 577 BEGIN END AVG ' LINEAR FEET X SECTION NOMENCLATURE HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT FEET HEIGHT , NOTES A North wall 0.67 1.5 1.08 16.00 17,33 B North wall 1.5 2.5 2.00 16.00 32.00 C North wall 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 D North wall - step down 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 E North wall - step down 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 F North wall - step down 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 G North wall - step down 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 H North wall - step down 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 I North wall - step down 2.5 4 3.25 6.00 19.50 J Lower east wall 2.5 2.5 2.50 46.00 115.00 K Stair rail- west wall 4 1.5 2.75 6.00 16,50 L Stair rail- N 1.5 1.5 1.50 10.00 15.00 M Top of stairs - N rail 0.67 0.67 0.67 4.67 3.12 N Top of stairs - S rail 0.67 0.67 0.67 4.67 3.12 O Stair rail -S 1.5 1.5 1.50 10.00 15.00 P Landing - stair rail S 1.5 1.5 1.50 6.67 10.01 Q. Landing -retaining E 5.5 5.5 5,50 6.00 33.00 (1) R Stair rail -east wall 4 2.5 3.25 6.00 19.50 S Pool- garden wall E 5.5 5.5 5.50 2.67 14.69 (2) T Pool- door 0 0 0.00 4.00 0.00 U Pool- garden wall E 5.5 5.5 5.50 2.67 14.69 (2) ✓ Pool- door 0 0 0.00 4.00 0.00 W Pool- garden wall E 5.5 5.5 5.50 4.00 22.00 (2) X Pool- S wall 4 3 3.50 4.67 16.35 Y Pool- retaining W 5.67 5.67 5.67 18.00 101.99 (3) Z South wall- step up 3 4 3.50 4.67 16.35 AA South wall- step up 4 2 3.00 4.67 14.01 BB South wall- step up 4 2.5 3.25 4.67 15.18 CC South wall 4 1.5 2.75 4.67 12.84 DD Upper wall- S 2 2 2.00 26.67 53.34 EE Upper wall- N 1.5 2 1.75 74.00 129.50 Sum of linear feet and weighted height 333.37 826.99 Average height of walls (weighted height / linear feet) 2.48 feet NOTES (1) Wall height determined by code requiring 6 1/2" riser and 11 1/2" tread + safety rail (2) Wall continued at same height for aesthetic purposes. Top of pool heater is 4' (3) Wall height determined by code requiring less than 2:1 slope (Seven 16" blocks over and seven 8" blocks down = 2:1 maximum slope) Also, header board will be attached to this wall to support trellis to hide pool equipment. TOTAL P.03 April 23, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Ciiy 0/ leolliny INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com ZONING CASE NO. 577, Request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach -into the north side yard setback, request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the south side yard setback and request for a Variance to permit the construction of a trellis in the front yard setback for property at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: As discussed at the April 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission has requested to view revised plans of the following: • Modify or remove the lowest (easternmost) pool equipment wall so that it does not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1 /2 feet. • Modify all other retaining and pool equipment walls so that they do not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1 /2 feet. • Modify retaining and pool equipment walls at the southeast so that they are at least 5 feet from the property line. • Provide a landscape plan. We appreciate you working with the Planning Commission to resolve outstanding issues in order to complete your project. Please provide 7 copies of the revised plan by May 8, 1998. If you would like to provide any additional documents in addition to the requested plan, we will be happy to submit them to the Planning Commission prior to the next regular meeting on May 19, 1998. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerei LOLA UNGAR PLANNING D OR cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Pririted on Recycled Paper. 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 March 22, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Leonard A. Swanson 2 Chesterfield Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Len and Gordana, The Planning Commission will be visiting our property on March 28 to view the "as built" retaining walls we constructed. The Commission will be here sometime between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM. They will then swing by your place to view the walls from your house. This is to invite you to join the Commission when they are at our house so that you can get a close-up view of the construction. have enclosed a copy of the Variance Application. We installed the walls to remedy a slope failure problem. The application describes a serious slope failure and related cracking of the pool and patio that we were experiencing. Lynn Craig is experiencing a similar problem further up slope. His spa and surrounding patio decking has dropped about 8 inches. I will have a copy of the geologist's report available at the field trip. We also have some "before" pictures showing the slope failure and erosion. We will also have available landscape plans showing how we are plan to plant, out the walls. There will be trailing plants such as Rosemary prostratus, Bougainvillea, and Lantana tumbling over the walls. The bank will be planted with California natives such as Erigononum (St. Catherine's lace), Ceanothus (Wild lilac), and Cistus (Rockrose). We selected split face block the same color as the adobe soil, and the planting will cause the walls to disappear. We understand your concern about maintaining Rolling Hills lots as horse properties. Sheri and I don't have a horse, but seeing and hearing yours adds to our rural experience. We have a private 10 foot trail along our north property line, from Chuckwagon to the lower pad and then on to the northeast corner of the property. There is a flat area there that would be appropriate for a barn, adjacent to the Billig's barn. A future property owner could also construct a barn and corral on the lower pad, on the same level as the Craig's barn and corral. We share a 3-rail white fence with the Craig's in that area. Again, Sheri and I invite you'to come over and have a look at the construction close-up. I will be in town this week, so if Saturday is not convenient, you are welcome to come by any evening. Regards, i_ • City ofiedeinv FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION March 18, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 577, Request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback, request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the south side yard setback and request for a Variance to permit the construction of a trellis in the front yard setback for property at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: At the Planning Commission's March 17, 1998 meeting, Dr. Leonard Swanson, 2 Chesterfield Road, informed the Commission by letter of his concerns' about the appearance of the "as built" retaining walls on your property. We :have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the "as built" retaining walls and the view from Dr. Swanson's property on Saturday. March 28,1998. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 AM at 6 Middleridge Lane, go to 4 Storm Hill Lane, and then proceed to your property. Following the visit to your property, the Commission will view the site from 2 Chesterfield Road. Do not expect the Planning Commission at 7:30 AM but be assured that the field trip will take place before 10:00 AM. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Since OLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR 3105410059 SWANSON 310-541-0059 663 P01 MAR 17 '98 16:04 4 The Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 March 17, 1998 Via Facsimile # 310 377-7288 MAR 1 7 1998 CITY OF r?OLL€ :3 !-!ILLS Dear members of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission: I am writing this letter in lieu of atten.ing the meeting tonight and wish to express the following for the record: • Zoning violation at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16 CF) is located two lots from our property and it is not in keeping with Rolling Hills open space environment in any way. • I am concerned that both the Craigs' and Gills' properties will no longer be optimal horse lots if this monumental wall structure is retroactively permitted. • There is no space between the property in question and their next door neighbor's corral fence -none whatsoever. As a matter of fact the Gills used the neighbor's • (Craigs') corral fence as the base of support for their own wood fence which extends above their illegal wall. • We inquired from the City Manager why we never received notice about this construction, and were told that the city was not aware of any construction and will look into the matter. Subsequently, a stop order was placed on the construction, and the City Manager informed us ofthat action. Construction continued after the stop order, and the project was comp] ted. I was aware of this because I saw'the developments daily while attending to my horse in our corral and while feeding him twice a day . I urge the Planning Commission to look at this project for what it is, a flagrant violation in the truest sense. Please advise us of your actions. I would like to stress that my complaint is with the land use and not with the people involved. Sincerely, 4744/4 Leonard A. Swanson, M.D. 2 Chesterfield Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • Ci1y op2ffin S �aee STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING March 10, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 577, Request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback, request for a Variance for previously constructed illegal retaining walls that encroach into the south side yard setback and request for a Variance to permit the construction of a trellis in the front yard setback for property at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16- CF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Gill: 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. 577 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 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, March 13,1998. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR The Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 March 17,1998 • Via Facsimile # 310 377-7288 n [L,<, .1 MAR 1 7 1998 CITY CF i'3LL;, H,LLS Dear members of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission: I am writing this letter in lieu of attending the meeting tonight and wish to express the following for the record: • Zoning violation at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16 CF) is located two lots from our property and it is not in keeping with Rolling Hills open space environment in any way. • . I am concerned that both the Craigs' and Gills' properties will no longer be optimal horse lots if this monumental wall structure is retroactively permitted. • There is no space between the property in question and their next door neighbor's corral fence -none whatsoever. As a matter of fact the Gills used the neighbor's • (Craigs') corral fence as the base of support for their own wood fence which extends above their illegal wall. • We inquired from the City Manager why we never received notice about this construction, and were told that the city was not aware of any construction and will look into the matter. Subsequently, a stop order was placed on the construction, and the City Manager informed us ofthat action. Construction continued after the stop order, and the project was completed. I was aware of this because I saw the developments daily while attending to my horse in our corral and while feeding him twice a day . I urge the Planning Commission to look at this project for what it is, a flagrant violation in the truest sense. Please advise us of your actions. I would like to stress that my complaint is with the land use and not with the people involved. Sincerely, Leonard A. Swanson, M.D. 2 Chesterfield Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 March 22, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Leonard A. Swanson 2 Chesterfield Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Len and Gordana, The Planning Commission will be visiting our property on March 28 to view the "as built" retaining walls we constructed. The Commission will be here sometime between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM. They will then swing by your place to view the walls from your house. This is to invite you to join the Commission when they are at our house so that you can get a close-up view of the construction. have enclosed a copy of the Variance Application. We installed the walls to remedy a slope failure problem. The application describes a serious slope failure and related cracking of the pool and patio that we were experiencing. Lynn Craig is experiencing a similar problem further up slope. His spa and surrounding patio decking has dropped about 8 inches. I will have a copy of the geologist's report available at the field trip. We also have some "before" pictures showing the slope failure and erosion. We will also have available landscape plans showing how we are plan to plant out the walls. There will be trailing plants such as Rosemary prostratus, Bougainvillea, and Lantana tumbling over the walls. The bank will be planted with California natives such as Erigononum (St. Catherine's lace), Ceanothus (Wild lilac), and Cistus (Rockrose). We selected split face block the same color as the adobe soil, and the planting will cause the walls to disappear. We understand your concern about maintaining Rolling Hills lots as horse properties. Sheri and I don't have a horse, but seeing and hearing yours adds to our rural experience. We have a private 10 foot trail along our north property line, from Chuckwagon to the lower pad and then on to the northeast corner of the property. There is a flat area there that would be appropriate for a barn, adjacent to the Billig's barn. A future property owner could also construct a barn and corral on the lower pad, on the same level as the Craig's barn and corral. We share a 3-rail white fence with the Craig's in that area. Again, Sheri and I invite you to come over and have a look at the construction close-up. I will be in town this week, so if Saturday is not convenient, you are welcome to come by any evening. Regards, 0,4( 414-6 /awl