Planning commission continues review of proposed 6,900-square-foot residence at 6 Chuckwagon Road after neighbor concerns

The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission on May 20 continued consideration of zoning case 24-043, a proposal for a new residence, detached lanai (greater than 200 square feet), a stable and a six-car garage at 6 Chuckwagon Road. Staff and the project team described the project and neighbors raised concerns about scale, driveway alignment, privacy, steep slopes and overall site disturbance.

Reina (project planner, Willdan) presented the application and summarized the three primary requests: site plan review for a new 6,939-square-foot residence (plus a 2,877-square-foot basement), conditional use permits for a detached accessory structure over 200 square feet (a lanai) and for a stable over 200 square feet, and variances for front-yard construction, site disturbance above 40 percent and fill slopes steeper than 2:1. She said the project site is in the RAS-1 zone, the net lot area is about 72,508 square feet (approximately 1.66 acres), and the applicant is seeking an increase in allowable disturbance (the staff presentation cited a rise to roughly 77 percent disturbed area). Reina said the project was renoticed after staff found steep slopes during the April 15 field visit.

Multiple neighbors and their representatives spoke at length. Paul Reese (6 Chuckwagon Road) and his wife emphasized loss of privacy, noise, headlights and exhaust from a driveway and a six-car garage sited near their master bedroom; Reese asked whether the house could be shifted west on the lot, whether the house or lanai could be reduced in size, and whether the driveway and garage could be moved or reduced to lessen impacts. Alan Rigg, a consultant for nearby neighbors, presented a chart comparing nearby homes and said the proposed residence is much larger than surrounding houses on similar-size lots; he asked the commission to direct the applicant to consider modifications (for example, reducing garage size) to reduce impacts. Stephanie Reese (neighbor) described the personal importance of privacy and asked the commission to consider the family’s concerns.

Project architect and representatives (Jeff Browning, client’s architect; Dan Bolton, civil engineer) and the applicant said the design responds to the lot constraints and view corridors. The civil engineer explained that existing steep slopes were among the reasons for variances and said he expects a soils/geology report and hydrology that will be required before grading permits are issued. He said lowering and regrading pads and placing foundations into more competent material (bedrock) can improve slope stability in many cases.

Several commissioners and staff expressed concern about neighbor outreach and recommended the applicant work with neighbors where feasible. Commissioners asked the applicant to clarify driveway alignment, stakes and grade on the site so the neighbors and commission can better visualize vehicle movements, headlights and noise. The architect and owner’s team agreed to clear overgrown vegetation on the lot, re-stake/flag the proposed driveway alignment and review options (including screening plantings and possible reduction or relocation of the garage) and return to a future meeting. The commission then voted to continue the item to a future date so the applicant and staff can respond to the neighborhood concerns and provide updated materials. The motion to continue was approved by roll call with Commissioners Cardenas, Hsu, Douglas and Vice Chair Kirkpatrick voting aye; Chair Shelf was absent.

No final approvals or variances were granted at the May 20 hearing; the action on May 20 was to continue the matter to allow the applicant time to revise and provide clearer on-site staking and additional materials requested by the commission and neighbors.