Loading...
564, 548, 560, 584, 599, & 625M, Resolutions: 96-21, 809, 97-19, Correspondence• • Bernard Howroyd March 30, 2007 Honorable Chairman Witte And Members of the Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 By Ff5-‘cia APR 0 2 2007 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUBJECT: Request for review of staff's interpretation of a condition of approval in Resolution No. 97-10. Dear Members of the Planning Commission, In 1997, I came before the Planning Commission for a modification to a Site Plan Review application for grading and construction of a stable and corral, which was approved in 1996. The request for modification consisted of additional grading and a variance for improper importation of soil. The modification was approved on May 20, 1997 by Resolution No. 97-10. One of the conditions of this resolution states that "any modification to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for a Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission". I now wish to add a 720 square foot garage to my residence, and convert the existing garage to living space. This would ordinarily be subject to "over the counter approval". However, the City may have interpreted the intent of the 1997 approval to require Planning Commission review for any future development on my property. My recollection of the meetings is that the restriction related to the improper importation of soil and additional grading for the 1996 project, and was not intended to apply to my house as well. So I contacted the then Chairman, Allan Roberts, to get his recollection on the intent of the restriction in Resolution No. 97-10. Mr. Roberts' recollection is the same as mine, and he states that the restriction was put on the project under review at that time. (See enclosed letters.) As a twenty year resident who enjoys my home with my family in this community, I look forward to many more years here. So, I am asking that you please review the attached resolution toward your interpretation that I may be permitted to complete this project of under 1000 square feet. Your earliest consideration will be very appreciated by me and my family. Bernard Howroyd 7 MAVERICK LANE ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90274 i 161E' J'S)-jj OCT 062005 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By• September 12, 2005 Mr. Bernard Iowrovd 7 Maverick Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Bernie, ALLAN ROBERTS 1303 STONEWOOD COURT SAN PEDRO, CA 90732 In answer to your question as to the intent of Resolution No. 97-10, which I signed on May 20, 1997, the restriction was put on the project which was in violation of importation of dirt and was intended to avoid any further importation of dirt on that project, Hop this clarifies your inquiry. Very truly yours, Allan Roberts • 7 Maverick Lane 141-R -� Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 17, 2005 Allan Roberts 1303 Stonewood Court San Pedro, CA 90731 Dear Allan: By O C T 0 0 2005 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I live at 7 Maverick Lane, and I need clarification regarding Resolution No. 97-10, which you signed on May 20, 1997, as Chairman of the Planning Commission. I have enclosed a copy of the Resolution and the minutes forwarded to me by the City of Rolling Hills. There is a misunderstanding between the City and myself on this resolution. I am now in the process, 8 years later, of wishing to put caissons in the landslide area of my driveway, and extend an existing patio over my garage by approximately 700 square feet. This work would ordinarily be subject to permit "over the counter," but the City has taken the position that the 1997 variance requires ongoing Planning Commission approval for any alterations to the property. To the contrary, my recollection of the meeting, and my reading of the resolution, is that the variance was related to the improper importation of soil for the 1997 project, and was not intended to require Planning Commission approval for future projects. Would you kindly study Resolution No. 97-10 and give me clarification as to whether it was the intention of the Planning Commission that the resolution apply to the 1997 project on the lower pad only, or if is was meant to apply to my house as well. I hope this letter finds you in good health, and I will be very grateful for your honest opinion. Sincerely, Bernie Howroyd End: a/s 7 Princi + Planner Ungar presented the staff report -ling the applicant's request and the Plann ommission field trip. Commissioner Ma ..ta stated that he has abstained from consideration o oning-Case No. 553 due to the proposed project's proximity to his residence. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Mr. Bernard Howroyd, applicant, commented on a letter regarding the project submitted by Mr. James Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane. He stated that Mr. Brogdon has since stated to him that it is best that he finish this project. Mr. Howroyd requested that the Planning Commission allow him to complete his project. Chairman Roberts stated that he would like to ensure that any further development on this property be brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hankins expressed concern regarding the fact that this project came before the Commission after - the -fact and that any resolution relative to this case should reflect that this work has already been done without City approval. She commented on the proposed grading and the City's 30% guideline. In response to Commissioner Hankins, Principal Planner Ungar reported that the additional soil for this project came from an excavation for a basement at 5 Sagebrush Lane. Chairman Roberts stated that these types of occurrences have led staff to initiate the grading confirmation process procedures reviewed by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Roberts closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Commissioner Witte moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the request for a Variance to allow increased grading quantities in Zoning Case No. 553 with standard findings of fact and standard conditions of approval including conditions that any further development on the property would require • Planning Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without Planning Commission approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the barn area occur. Commissioner Sommer seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte, Sommer and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Margeta. Commissioner Witte moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the request for Site Plan Review to allow increased grading quantities in Zoning Case No. 553 with standard findings of fact and standard conditions of approval including conditions that any further development on the property would require Planning Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without Planning Commission approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the barn area occur. Commissioner Sommer seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte, Sommer and Chairman Roberts. NOES: :::None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Margeta. Charles Raine, 2 Pinto Road, expressed concern for the proposed project. He questioned what recourse the City has when violations of the City's Municipal Code occur. Assistant City Attorney Ennis explained the penalties imposed for violations of the Municipal Code. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERATION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATIONS Commissioner Witte presented a draft letter which he proposes that the City use to deter unapproved site development. City Manager Nealis reported that staff will be preparing a report regarding economic penalties and/or other disincentives for after the fact grading and methods of increasing the monitoring of a project for review by the Planning i n�r—��_� Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 1997 % -8- BOLT( ENGINEERING CORPO•TION 707 Silver Spur Road Ste. 201 Rolling Hills Estates, Ca. 90274 (310) 544-6010 Fax (310) 544-0458 August 30, 2004 Craig Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Re: Howroyd driveway excavation and removal #7 Maverick Lane Dear Craig, OF CI,L1F0��' In order that a proper repair take place, it was necessary to remove the previous two buried asphalt layers and the associated base materials plus the pavers on top. After digging the footing at the base of the swimming pool wall, the excess layers of old driveway were discovered. These layers show a thickness of a minimum of 21" and a maximum of 25". To maintain the slope of the drive, and tie into the area of debris removal as well as join the existing road to the stable, it required the stripping of all material down to the natural soil. The amount of debris removal (grading) associated with this project was calculated at 101 cubic yards. The maximum depth of cut was 3'. When measured at a descending angle from 0 to 3', we can assume that the average depth of cut was 1 1/2' Based on the removal of 1 1/2' over the 1820 square feet, the depth of cut equals out to 101 cubic yards of material. I believe this will suffice the question of the amount of disturbance that took place at the Howroyd residence. , v‘k0FESSI 00. 2G120 / -- Sincerely, Douglas K. McHattie Bolton Engineering Corporation January 29, 1997 Mr. Bernard Howroyd ' 7 Maverick Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF "AS GRADED" PLAN 7 MAVERICK LANE (LOT.28-SK) Dear Mr. Howroyd: We appreciate you providing the "as graded" plan for your development project on the above mentioned lot. We have concluded an initial review of the "as graded" plan and visited the construction site with the County's District Engineer Ms. Lata Thakar and Senior En sneering Building Inspector Mr. Rafael Bernal. Our initial review revealed 'a number of issues that need to be resolved. These issues are: 1. The original site plan approved by the Planning Commission allows only 110 cubic yards of cut soil. The "as graded" plan shows 340 cubic yards of cut soil. 2. The original site plan approved by the Planning Commission allows only 110 cubic yards of fill soil. The "as graded" plan shows 1,750 cubic yards of fill soil and a substantially expanded stable pad. 3. -. The original site plan approved by the Planning Commission shows the slope between the stable and beginning of the driveway as having a 3:1 slope. Following our site inspection, it appears that this. slope was misrepresentedon the original site plan and on the as -graded plan and is not in conformance with the City and County's requirement of a 2:1 slope. The plan does not comply with what we saw at the site. It appears that the steepness of the slope may be a pre-existing condition, however, the County has some serious concerns as to whether the stable construction could be approved given its proximity to the slope in question. . • 4. In addition, the City Manager approved the importation of a 'maximum of 130 cubic yards of soil onto your lot from the Hao property at 5 Sagebrush Lane (Lot 100-A-3- RH). The. import and export 'of more than this amount requires the City Manager's approval and if the amount is more than 500 cubic yards of soil, such action requires prior Planning Commission approval. It appears that much more than 500 cubic yards of soil was imported to your lot and thus, prior Planning Commission approval was required for that action. Consequently, we have determined that your project is in violation of the original plans as' presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996. Therefore, you are hereby ordered to submit to the City in writing how you plan to resolve this situation and bring your property into conformance with the approved project. As an alternative to bringing the site into conformance with approved plans, you are permitted to apply to the Planning Commission for 'a Variance to disrupt the balanced cut and fill ratio and toallow the existing importation of the substantial amount of imported soil. This request would also have to be accompanied by a request to modify your Site Plan Review approval to increase the grading quantities and for changes to the corral. Should you apply for the Variance and Modification to the Site Plan Review and pay appropriate fees, we will consider modifying the stop work order to allow work to continue on portions of your project that would not preclude the restoration of your property into conformance with the development as originally approved by . the Planning Commission. We stand ready to review any proposals you may choose to offer as towhat portions of this project may continue without precluding you from removing the imported soil should the Planning Commission deny your request. Your decision must be made in writing within the next 15 days (by February 13, 1997) as to . your course of action. Should you elect to make application for the Variance and Modification to the Site Plan Review approval, we will make every effort to expedite your applications to their earliest possible conclusions, but you should understand that there is no assurance that the Planning Commission will approve those applications. Thus, it is possible that even after going through the process of applying for the Variance and Modification to the Site Plan Review, you may be required to return the site to its originally approved condition. The "Stop Work Order" for all other building and grading work currently remains in effect. At this time, you may only continue work on the hillside at the rear of the property in the stable area to stabilize any unsafe conditions only. This limited exception to the "Stop Work Order" is only to preserve the integrity of the hillside. Feel free to call me if you have any' questions regarding this matter. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: . City Council Planning Commission Craig R. Nealis, City Manager Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager Lata Thakar, District Engineer, Building & Safety Rafael Bernal, Senior Engineering Building Inspector, Building& Safety Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Criss Gunderson, Architect Dutch Phillips