Loading...
203, Construct SFR with slope gradi, Correspondence• City opeollinl JODY MURDOCK Mayor GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Mayor pro tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. F. Leonard Coates 2500 Anabas Avenue San Pedro, CA 90732 Dear Mr. Coates: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING MILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 December 13, 1983 CERTIFIED MAIL P 275 557 493 Re: Southfield Tract Area City of Rolling Hills It has come to the attention of the City of Rolling Hills that application has been made to the Rolling Hills Community Association for approval of plans for the construction of a single family resi- dence on Lot No. 3 of the above referenced tract. It is anticipated that an application by the owner for a building permit will be sub- mitted to the City in the near future. The purpose of this letter is to communicate to you certain concerns of the City Council and to request certain information of you so as to assist the City in eval- uating this potential project. As you no doubt recall, when the residence proposed for Lot 2 was before the Community Association in 1979, the Association Board expressed grave concern over the development of Lot No. 3. Indeed, its action of April 5, 1979, permitting a slope modification, was contingent upon execution of a written agreement with the Association so as to preclude construction of a separate residence on Lot 3. At a subsequent meeting of the Board on April 19, 1979, the minutes of that meeting reflect that you appeared before the Board and made a presentation with respect to the same matter. The minutes reflect that you indicated that Lot 3 was at that time held in trust for other members of your family in England and that you were not in a position to place a deed restriction on that lot so as to preclude future development. The City has recently conducted a chain of title of the subject property and does not find any recorded document which would have restricted your ability in 1979 of placing a deed restriction on F. Leonard Coates, December 13, 1983 (page 2) Lot No. 3 in accordance with the Association's wishes. In order to complete staff's investigation, I wonder if you would kindly provide to me whatever document it is that you have in your possession that would support your statement during the Board meeting of April 19, 1979 that you were not legally in a position to place a deed restrict- ion on that lot. Receipt of this document will certainly clarify the record and facilitate the City's review of any forthcoming building permit application. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, copy: Alfred A. Marin 12410 Wilke Hawthorne, CA 90250 Bruce Burrell 846 21st Street San Pedro, CA.90731 RLS/jc Ronald L. Smith City Manager CERTIFIED MAIL P 275 557 494 CERTIFIED MAIL P 275 557 495 July 12, 1982 Mr. Bruce Burrell 846.21st Street San Pedro, Ca. 90731 Dear Mr. Burrell: The City of Rolling Hills would like to notify you of the 'parameters pertaining to the ultimate development of your property, Lot 3-SF located on Southfield Drive, that.is currently listed for sale. This property has comprehensive constraints that make development difficult, if not potentially impossible. ;In order to meet the Muni- ' cipal Code requirements pertaining to grading, and to blend with the rural low profile architecture established,by the Rolling Hills Commu- nity Association, careful.: consideration to all aspects of development in the City of Rolling Hills will need to be undertaken. The main purpose ofthis correspondence is to insure that any future buyer of the property is made aware of these constraints and potential that the property may not be buildable at all. It may be advisable to have any escrow initiated on the property held open pending approval and permit issuance of grading and architectural• plans by both the City of. Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Community Association. This would avoid problems in the future by the new..' owner not being made aware of the problems. The City of Rollin; Hills finds that full disclosure is a sound objective to be met in selling real estate as advocated by the National Board of Realtors. Sincerely, Ronald L. Smith City Manager Copy: Peggy Minor, Manager Rolling Hills Community Association Rolling Hills Board of Realtors Calif. State Dept. of Real Estate December 7, 1978 Mr. F. L. Coates 2500;Anabas Avenue San Pedro, California 90732 Dear Mr. Coates, I have reviewed the proposed plan for your residence at 3 Southfield Drive, which plan provides for an additional wall extending for a length of thirty feet, not to exceed 2 1/2 feet in height, and an additional 600 square feet of area in the residence. I also examined the decision of the City Council in over -ruling the decision of the Planning Commission, and I find that the changes in the plan will not violate the provisions of the decision of the City Council on April 10, 1978. My conclusion is based also on the representation made to Mrs. Teena Clifton, the City Manager, and to me, both verbally and as stated in your letters dated November 30 and December 4, 1978, in which you stated that the ad- dibion of a third retaining wall would not increase the area of grading in excess of the requirement of 2/1, and that the additional square footage would not disturb or otherwise enlarge the overall design of the house, since the greater portion of the additional footage is to be contained in a rear deck. Very truly y9urs, William Kinley City Attorney WLK/ j c 2500 Anabas Avenue San Pedro, Calif 9073 December 4 1978 Mr. Kinley City Attorney City of Rolling Hills California. Dear Mr. Kinley, In submitting plans for my house to the Architectural Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, a few minor items need clarification to ensure that we are still within the requirements of the conditions granted for the grading variance for my lot on Southfield. The points for clarification are (1) My architect shows in the plan, a small wall approximately 30' long at the entrance to the house. This was put in to define the entry way. This wall is not visible from the outside of theproperty and will enhanse the appearance of the house approach. Without this wall the downslope would meet the walkway and during a heavy rain1dirt may wash over this path and make it muddy. (2) In the last submission made before the Planning Commission in January 1978, a plan was produced for it's consideration. This showed the 3 cross -sections for the grading and the footprint of the house. It showed the house as being 100 feet long with 3 indentations in the rear wall. However, the foundation wall and the roof line would still be a straight line of 160' long. In various submissions to the Archi- tectural Committee, it was deemed desirable, to eliminate 2.of the 3 indentations and add a rear deck. The deck is not within the foundation wall of the house or it's roof line and is really an appurtenant to the house. In making a presentation to the City Council on my appeal, Tim Burrell noted that we had shown a great degree of architectural details to the Planning Commission. He remarked to the Council that this was probably a mistake since it led to a great amount of discussion on architectural matters and this probably was a mistake. The effect of the deck is to soften the appearance of the rear of the house and this conclusion is shared by the Architectural Committee,, (3) The grading in the amount of earth to be regraded, the elevation at which the house is to be constructed have not changed from those shown to the Planning Commission and the City Council in the respective hearings. Also the there is no change in the areas to be regraded or the cross sections as shown in exhibit before the Commission and the Council. No swimming pool or stable are in the submission to the Committee. Finally, last week, I replayed the tape of the Council hearing and confirmed that the resolution, approved by a unanimous vote, was precisely as shown in the minutes of the meeting prepared by Mars; Cunningham. 2. Although I have instru ed my architecV,-Mr. Ivan h, to avoid, at almost any cost, anything which would cause a rehearing beforthe Council, I hope that you will agree that the plans as submitted to the Committee are minor in variations and that plans are within the requirments as set by the City Council. I will also take this oppotunity to thank you for your positive and cooperative approach in the past. Yours truly L / F.L.Coates. • Mrs. T. Clifton City Manager City of Rolling Hills California. Dear Mrs. Clifton •2500 Anabas Avenue San Pedro California 90732 November 30 1978 Thank you for your kindness in seeing me and John Ivansich,my-architecht, at such short notice last Monday to discuss and clarify the questions that have arisen rearding the grading variance granted to me for 3 Southfield. We are now, hopefully, in the final stages of review of my plans by the Architectural Committee, and so an early solution to any problems would be much appreciated. The submission made to the Committee does not in any way change the amount of dirt to be regraded. This is the most basic thing appertaining to a grading variance. The set -back, the construction at the elevation shown in our submittal to the Planning Commission and City Counsel temain completely unchanged. We feel that the only variations that have been submitted to the Architectural Committee to those shovn in the exhibit to the City Counsel are Architectural features and I would like to comment and explain these as follows. (13 The additional wall which runs for a length of 30' is for the purpose of providing better definition at the entry way to the house, Without this wall, the grade would meet the walk -way and in wet weather, possibly cause dirt to wash over the driveway. The submission made to the City Counsel was based upon the fact that the Association would not restrict to an average of only 2A' for the wall shown in that submission. In reading the Association's booklet on building requirements' es not appear to make any reference to any other than the 5' height requirement. At least in the copy that I have. Furthermore, the wall notibe visible from outside of my property. (2) In the exhibit shown to the Counsel during the hearing a foot -print of the house was shown with 3 recesses in the back -wall. This exhibit had been used in the planning Commission hearings. In replayingthe tape of the 9ounsel hearing,last Monday, I noted thatq Tim Burrell had stated to the Counsel that in our to try and satisfy the Planning Commission, we had gone into great detail on architectural detail to the point of showing these recesses and perhaps this was a mistake. In the submission to the Architectural Committee the overall length of the house remains the same as in the Exhibit, namely 100' but two of the three recesses have been eliminated to provide nicer planning for the house. Additionally, a rear deck has been added. This, according to Mr. Ivancich and,I think to Committee will tend to soften the rear elevation of the house, and will therefore be and architectural enhansement. Certainly, the outline of the foundation walls remain the same. (3) With regard to the grading .ihe grading, the submission to the Mrs. T. Clifton.(cont) Committee is in conformance with the Exhibit shown to the Counsel and in terms of amount of dirt to be graded, in conformance with the amount of dirt given in the testimony. In the testimony given by Tim Burrell before the City Counsel he was leading the Counsel progressively through the continued hearing before the City Planning Commission and stated that at the December hearing we had modified the grading so that the arOa to be graded to a 12 to 1 slope would only be in one place, at the front of the house and that the area in the rear of the house would be a 2 to 1 slope with a retaining wall. He further stated that the Planning Commission rejected this and in the January hearing we had gone back to the grading of 12 to 1 in the front and areas in the rear of the house as per the same exhibit, before the City Counsel. This may have given rise to the thought that the grading to l to 1 was in two areas. Certainly, after listening last Monday to the tape of the whole of the Counsel hearing on my appeal, I can vouch that the resolution, unanimoutly approved by the Counsel is very accurately reflected in minutes prepared by Mrs. Cunningham, that the appeal for my grading variance was approved subject to the construction of a single family house , with the grading limited to 650 cubic yards with a tolerance of 10% and that without further City approval I cannot construct a stable, garage, or other structure. I trust that this will assist you and Mr. Kinley in deciding whether any vafiations in our submission to the Committee are still within the intent and context of the allowing the appeal. Certainly, I have no intention of resubmitting the matter to the Commission or Counsel again, for such minor changes,phese I would rather forego than go through that procedure. I am grateful to Mr. Kinley, you and your staff the very cooperative, constructive and kind approach that I have received in trying to resolve any problems. I only wish the same were true for most other public agencies and their officials. Yours truly F.L.Coates. • • cf� 0/ reern$ �✓eP April 20, 1978 Mr. Tim Burrell 4038 Exultant Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 re: F. L. Coates - Appeal, Case No. 203 Dear Mr. Burrell: WILLIAM KINLEY CITY ATTORNEY SUITE 901 555 EAST OCEAN BLVD. LONG BEACH, CALIF. 90802 (213) 437-0973 Enclosed herewith is a copy of the notice of ruling on appeal in the above entitled matter. The original of this notice will be placed in the file of this case in the records of the City. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. Yours truly, i illiam Kinle3 STEPHEN J. KOONCE ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER PALOS VERDES-CENTINELA VALLEY REGION 24320 South Narbonne Avenue Lomita, California 90717 325-9500 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS January 17, 1978 Mrs. Teena Clifton City Manager Rolling Hills, California Dear Mrs. Clifton: CHECK OF YARDAGE QUANTITIES FOR LOT 2-SF, 3 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE JOB NO. 3724.50 ARMANDO CID REGIONAL ENGINEER Our grading section has reviewed the yardage quantities indicated on the grading plan for Lot 2-SF, 3 Southfield Drive. We received two grading plan sheets from Mr. Len Coates. One indicates a 12 to 1 fill and the other indicates a 2 to 1 fill. Both indicate a 1i to 1 cut. The quantities as computed by our grading section are approxi- mately 5% less than indicated on the plans. However, it appears from our review that retaining walls have not been indicated. This is based on the contours shown. Our compu- tations are based on retaining walls being built on the location shown on the grading plan. If you have any questions, please call. Yours very truly, Stephen J. Koonce ACTING CITY ENGINEER Armand Cid 6-12 Deputy AC-dm R-2 cc: Mr. Len Coates