Loading...
none, Satellite antenna, Correspondence(;4 0/ leo lliRg .Afro December 21, 1998 Mrs. Leslie Stetson 71 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ROUND CORRAL & GARDEN WALLS 71 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 66-RH) Dear Mrs. Stetson: 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 We have reviewed your letter of December 7, 1998 regarding the existing round corral and garden walls at the northern portion of your property. We understand that as it is configured the round corral that includes garden walls is too small to be termed a "riding ring." Based upon your correspondence and our research, we have determined that the round corral that includes garden walls at your property walls will not require a Conditional Use Permit application at this time. However, should there be any enlargement of the round corral or substantial modification of its use towards a riding ring or encroachments into required setbacks, appropriate applications must be made to the Planning Commission in accordance with required provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Should you have any questions regarding the Rolling Hills Municipal Code or the Planning Commission review process, please feel free to call us at City Hall at (310) 377-1521. Sincerel LOLA UNGA;111"" R PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Ms. Kristi K. Skelton, Architect Printed on Recycled Pvhc!r_ December 7,1998 Lola Ungar Planning Director City Of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Lola, IM DEC 0 7199a CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Rv This is the follow up letter that I promised after our phone conversation on Friday December 4, 1998. I hope to address the points of our discussion and perhaps prevail upon the city as to the best way to resolve our dilemma over the termed use of the lower horse property. Regarding the round corral, I mentioned that the available area for the corral had decreased due to the imprecise measurements taken in the garden wall construction phase. The corral measures 58 feet across, making it smaller then the smallest circle that one would chose to work a horse in. As you know, the fact that the corral is round was largely an esthetic choice because of the property shape. Had there been room for a larger circle, I agreed with Craig that a case could very well be made for a conditional use permit being needed. I would like the city attorney, however, to review the code in this matter. My architect and I sat together and filled out the permit application and with every question it became increasingly clear that from our perspective what we had constructed is in reality a level corral suited only for the purpose of providing good dry footing on an adobe slope. There is one post of the garden wall that is 34+ feet from the centerline of the road. Had I known that a 35 foot requirement was needed, I would have made sure that we complied. As you are aware, however, my workers were not working from very specific plans and the terrain often made work difficult. I honestly thought that we were on a 25 foot mark and was pleased to set it back from that to bring it off the road. It is the city's right to require whatever the code dictates, but in this case we may be splitting inches. This brings me to a word about the expense involved in a survey. When the first survey was proposed, agreed to a $1,500. cost for that, but.again the reality was a minimum charge of $3,000. and that amount with the other fees has become prohibitive at this time. We have already paid to have the adjacent owners of record notified. I have had an opportunity to speak to several owners about the corral, and the overwhelming comment has been "but its too small to be a riding ring". Mrs. Walker always tells me how much she enjoys seeing the horses there. Mrs. Gitter , Mrs. Lluncor and Mrs. Edelbrock have all told me how nice it looks. I would be surprised if anyone is objecting. The community association architectural committee also has given me their informal blessing as to the look. In horse keeping I find that you can not have too many corral options. I also mentioned that we had a rather serious horse injury due to the way it was left and this is the reason I fenced the circle. The garden wall on the side property does not go all the way over to the property line. It stops well inside of the new fence, which we had moved over anyway away from where the old fence was. We were unsure of what had been required 30 years • ago and decided to give lots of room for past error. I think the architect may have drawn that over farther then we actually placed it. I would be willing to remove a section of the wall if that would help and would prefer not to have to go through the variance expense. I hope this helps to clarify why we proceeded and we welcome your decision on how to work through this. We look forward to many upgrades on this home over our lifetime in Rolling Hills and hope to avoid these types of problems in the future. Thank you for your interest and responses and I apologize for being slow in responding. Sincerely, Leslie Stetson i City o/ leoffinf Jhf/? October 21,1998 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Mr. and Mrs. Mark Stetson 71 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: PROPOSED HORSE TRAINING PEN & GARDEN WALLS 71 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 66-RH) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stetson: We have reviewed the plot plan that you have submitted for a proposed round horse training pen that includes garden walls at your property. The horse training pen will require a Conditional Use Permit application to the Planning Commissi in due to its use in accordance with Section 17.16.210 (A)(3) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. And, we will need the following further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application: The plot plan calls out the ring as 50 feet but actually measures 60 feet. The finished grades on each side of the ring appear to have a difference of 5 feet and 6.5 feet, respectively, not 3 feet maximum. You should note that the Rolling Hills Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. And, whether or not the ring is 50 or 60 feet in width, the project would also require a Site Plan Review application as a grading permit is required. A grading permit is requ-red for a cut that is more than three feet or a fill that is more than three feet 17r covers more than 2,000 square feet in accordance with Chapter 15.04 (Building Code) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code or more than 20 cubic yards in accordance with the Los Angeles County Uniform Building Code Section 70)3 (Grading Permits). Site Plan Review is also required for any grading t h a t requires a grading permi ° in accordance with Chapter 17.46 (Site Plan Review) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Setbacks for the lot are not shown. I will be happy to assist you or your representative with their location and dimensions on this irregular -shaped lot. A north directional arrow should be shown on the plot plan that must be stamped by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor along with the other requirements on the enclosed "Checklist for Plan Submittal" on Page 3 of the Conditional Use Permit application. Anoth requirement is that a Vicinity Map should be shown on a CO Printed on Recycled Paper • • corner of the plot plan drawn to scale with requested improvements dimensioned to property line and residences of all contiguous properties. Setbacks for this property are: Front Yard: 50 feet from the front easement line. Side Yard: 20 feet from the side property line and 35 feet from the side lot line on the Saddleback roadway side. Rear Yard: 50 feet from the property line. Section 17.16.120(A) (Requirements for RA-S-1 Zone), "Every lot or parcel shall have a side yard measuring no less than twenty (20) feet from the side property line, except if a Rolling Hills Community Association easement, located along the side property line, is improved with a roadway, then the side yard shall be no less than ten (10) feet from the interior edge of that easement. The plot plan as shown would require a Variance because the proposed garden wall is 33 feet from the property line in the side yard. The setback, because of the roadway, should be 35 feet. The plot plan as shown would also require a Variance because a proposed garden wall goes to the property line and encroaches 20 feet into the side yard setback near the barn area. A Variance is required because, in accordance with Section 17.16.130 (Rear yards) and Section 17.16.150 (Structures and driveways permitted within required yards and easements), required yards are to be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for certain circumstances that include a 3-rail boundary fence, driveways, uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting and irrigation systems. Stables and corrals are also permitted in rear yards. A garden wall is specifically defined as a structure in the Municipal Code. Please contact this office to arrange an office meeting or to inform us of any planned action. Should you have any questions regarding the Rolling Hills Municipal Code or the Planning Commission review process, please feel free to call us at City Hall at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Ms. Kristi K. Skelton, Architect