Loading...
46, Construct garage in front yard, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA July 29, 1964 The regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Gray, at 8:10 P.M., Wednesday, July 29, 1964. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Robert M. Gray, Chairman Ralph Blakey Grace Hill Godfrey Prenell Commissioner Absent: Raymond I. Mahan Also Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES William Kinley, City Attorney Robert E. Bowker Marcia E. Dessy Venard Kemp Anthony Jabuka Claire L. Coe Clarence S. Coe Martin M. Denn Preston W. Hill C. W. Beck Margaret Shafer, Secretary On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Blakey, The Commission unanimous- ly voted to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 26, 1964 as written. On motion of Mr. Blakey, seconded by Mrs. Hill and unanimously carried, the minutes of the adjourned regular meetings of June 23, 1964 and July 28, 1964 were approved as written. CORRESPONDENCE Received for record was a letter from Mr. Roland Seidler, Jr. dated July 29, 1964 authorizing Robert Bowker and Marcia Dessy to act as his representa- tives at the meeting of this date in the hearing on the application for a sideyard variance on his Lot 10-MR. Mrs. Dessy explained that she had filed the application for variance when she was financially interested in the lot, but that she probably would not purchase the lot; that a sale to another party was in escrow at present. She stated that the variance was not a condition to the sale. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE NO. 46 - DESSY, MRS. MARCIA E. - LOT 10-MR - APPLICATION FOR SIDE YARD VARIANCE Chairman Gray opened the meeting to a public hearing, duly noticed, to consider the application of Mrs. Marcia E. Dessy for a side yard variance on Lot 10-MR. The Secretary reported the only communication had been a telephone call from Mr. Donald Loker of 14 Williamsburg Lane on June 8, 1964 who said he had no objection to the granting of the variance and wished Mrs. Dessy good luck. The Chairman admitted into evidence a plot plan and floor plan, marked Exhibit I, and a print of the elevations of the proposed building, marked Exhibit II, and an application from the owner requesting a waiver of the side yard require- ment as stated in Ordinance No. 33, Article III, Section 3.07. Mrs. Dessy stated • • July 29, 1964 that the residence plan shown on Exhibits I and II had been abandoned because it had been disapproved by the Architectural Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, but that her request for the variance was necessary so that the lot could be put to the greatest use and to a use equal to that of the other property owners in the area. She explained that none of the residences on Middleridge Lane North were located more than 10 feet from the property lines,'that Lot 10-MR was 110 feet wide and the observance of a 10-foot ease- ment plus a 10-foot side yard on each side would reduce the width of the lot for building purposes to 70 feet, which imposed a hardship on the owners of this lot and of Lot 9, the only other vacant lot on the street. The Commissioners said it was necessary to know how much she was requesting that the side yard be reduced. They explained that it has been their opinion that an architect should design a residence within the limits of a particular lot; that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance should be upheld because one of the purposes of easements and side yards was to space the houses. Mr. Preston W. Hill, 3 Middleridge Lane North, whose residence was built before the Zoning. Ordinance was passed and therefore was situated only ten feet from the property line, stated that the angle of the proposed residence on the lot would be different than the other houses on the street, and would place portions of the residence very close to the living area of his house. When Mrs. Dessy defended the angle as necessary because of the narrow lot, Dr. Pernell suggested that was a point of esthetics for the Architectural Committee to decide. The Commissioners were in agreement that a variance could be granted only upon a request for a specific number of feet occasioned by a definite plan, and that plans should be fluid enough to be altered to meet the requirements of both the Architectural Committee and the Planning, Commission. In reply to Mr. Bowker's remark that he and Mrs. Dessy would like to get an expression from the Commission on what it might grant if a new plan were submitted, Mr. Gray replied that a decision could be made only on -a specific request and that the Commission considered that a house should be planned for the lot. Mrs. Dessy said that Mr. Guy T. Edgcomb, owner of Lot 9-MR, had authorized her to represent him at this hearing as an interested property owner, and that Mr. Edgcomb agreed with her that the easements and sideyards left too narrow a lot for the size of house justified by the cost of property in Rolling Hills. Dr. Pernell moved that the hearing be continued to the August 25th meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant time to submitia new blueprint of the house proposed to be built on the lot. Mrs. Hill seconded the motion, and the Commission voted unanimously in approval. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE NO. 47 - COE, MR. & MRS. CLARENCE S. - LOT 10-CH - FRONT YARD VARIANCE Chairman Gray opened the meeting to a public hearing, duly noticed, to consider the application of Mr. & Mrs. Clarence S. Coe for a front yard variance of Section 3.06 of Ordinance No. 33 to extend an existing nonconforming use on their Lot 10, Crest Hills. The Secretary reported there had been numerous verbal communications: Mrs. Jack J. Schroeder,.8 Cinchring Road, Mrs. John Tiger, 14 Cinchring Road, and Dr. Frank E. Stanton, 16 Cinchring Road, stated they had no objections to the granting of the request; Mr. Wardle E. Poulson, 10 Cinchring Road, expressed the opinion that although he had no objections to the variance he felt it might be granted subject to the Coes cutting back the foliage that made driving and riding a hazard on the curve of the road around the Coes' property. Mrs. Edgar Worth, 4 Cinchring, expressed the same opinion. Mr. Gray reported that -2- • July 29, .1964 during. the Commission's field trip tc the property, Mr. Robert O..Jennings, 5 Cinchring Road, stated he had no objection to the granting of the variance. Mr. Blakey stated that although clearing easements was generally a responsibility of the Rolling Hills Community, Association, if the shrubs created a traffic hazard it was within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to correct the situation. Mr. & Mrs. Coe said they had not been aware ofthe situation but would be happy to trim the shrubbery, whereupon Mrs. Hill moved that the front yard variance, as shown on Exhibit I admitted into evidence, be granted on the condition that the shrubs be trimmed back six feet or a distance determined by a Commissioner appointed to investigate the need. Chairman Gray appointed Mr. Blakey to make the determination. Seconded by Mr. Blakey, the motion unanimously carried. Mr. Gray declared the hearing closed. FINAL MAP - SUBDIVISION NO. 19 - TRACT 29529 - PORTION OF LOT 60-RH JACK MALIN, OWNER (FORMERLY PHYLLIS STOCKTON) Final map of Subidivision No. 19, prepared in accordance with the conditions previously imposed by the Planning Commission on the tentative map after a field trip to the property on February 29, 1964, and by the City Council thereafter, was considered. Mr. Venard Kemp, who represented the owner of the property, was instructed that the driveway from Eastfield Drive to Lot No. 2 must meet the following requirements as ordered by the Commission at its February 29th Regular Adjourned Meeting: Driveway of Lot 2 to enter Eastfield Drive within the following limits: Between 91 and 141 feet west of the most northerly corner of the property measured along the centerline of Eastfield Drive except not opposite: Loomis's driveway across the street. Driveways of Lots 1 and 3 to enter Eastfield Drive jointly at 25.28 feet centerly frontage of Lot 3. Mr. Kinley explained the easements on the sides and rear of all three lots met the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance No. 32, Section 12.05. Mr. Kemp stated to the Commission that the Lots No. 1 and No. 3 fronted on the private driveway shown on the said map, and that Lot No. 2 fronted on Eastfield Drive. The Secretary stated that to the best of her knowledge all requirements of Ordinance No. 32 had been met: a faithful performance bond for the setting of monuments has been deposited with the City in the amount of $1090.00; a surety bond for unpaid taxes has also been deposited by the subdivider with the City in the amount of $2500.00; all fees and charges have been paid with the exception of $25.00 due on the deposit for changes on the City's brown line map according to amended Section 10.06 of Ordinance No. 32; the final map indicates that the easements are to be dedicated to the City of Rolling Hills for the reason that the subject property is not presently under the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Mr. Kemp stated that if the subject property was subsequently under the controlof the Association that he would be willing to grant the easements to the Association. Mr. Blakey moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the final map of Tract 29529 be approved subject to the payment of the balance of all fees required by Ordinance No. 32. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, the motion unanimously carried. -3- • • July 29, 1964 FINAL MAP - SUBDIVISION NO. 13 - ANTHONY JABUKA - LOT 103-RH SUBDIVISION NO. 16 - VERN RATLIFF - LOTS 9 & 16 - GF Mr. Jabuka explained the final maps of Subdivisions No. 13 and No. 16 prepared in accordance with the conditions previously imposed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and stated that because Mr. Ratliff's sub- division was occasioned by his sale to Mr. Jabuka of 2.294 acres to create the necessary acreage for the Jabuka and Denni subdivisions, he was representing Mr. Ratliff at this meeting. The Commission decided to consider the final maps of subdivisions No. 13 and No. 16 concurrently. The Secretary stated that to the best of her knowledge all requirements of Ordinance No. 32 had been met, with the exception of submittal of an approved grading plan, and ascertaining that the monuments had been set as shown on the final map and according to Ordinance No. 32. A letter was read from the Design Division of the City Engineer's office, dated July 21, 1964, giving a flood hazard report on the subject property. Mr. William Kinley stated that a certification from Mr. Charles Miller, the engineer who prepared the map and see` the monuments, that the monuments were set as shown on the final map, would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 9.02 of Ordinance No. 32. Mr. Kinley stated further that the easements had been deeded to the Rolling Hills Community Association. Mr. Blakey moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the final maps of Subdivisions No. 13 and No. 16 be approved subject to: 1. The receipt by the City Clerk of an approved grading plan of the property in Subdivision No. 13; and 2. The certification by Mr. Charles Miller that the monuments have been set as shown on the map and in accordance with Section 9.02 of Ordinance No. 32. Seconded by Dr. Pernell, the motion was carried by unanimous vote. PERSONAL APPEARANCES Mr. C. W. Beck introduced himself as an interested spectator because he is planning to file a proposed subdivision map soon. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was. moved by Mrs. Hill, seconded by Dr. Pernell, and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 P.M. APPROVED: Robert M. Gray, Chairman -4- Margaret Shafer, Secretary