Loading...
none, Plans only - Addition to exist, Correspondence�0����1G HI("m"N�,�� �,9 October 5, 1998 city 0/ l2 !f s J&PL Mr. William R. Leach 5 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: DECK AT 7 WIDELOOP ROAD Dear Ms. Leach: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com This letter is to inform you that as a follow-up to your letter of August 19, 1998, we reviewed the deck built behind the house at 7 Wideloop Road with Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate. Mr. Bernal told us that about seven months ago he had been informed by the Corredors that they would be repairing and replacing only rotten wood for the existing deck at their property. The work was completed at that time and all work has been in compliance with building regulations. Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter at (310) 377-1521. LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Inspector Printed on Recycled Paper, • FRANK E. HILL Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor Pro Tern B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember JODY MURDOCK Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember August 19, 1998 Mr. William R. Leach 5 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Leach: • opeoffiny JUL 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 Thank you for your correspondence dated August 15, 1998, regarding 7 Wideloop Road. I inspected the device covering the car in the side yard. It does not meet the Municipal Code definition of a structure. However, I spoke to Roger Vink of the Rolling Hills Community Association regarding the temporary structure and garbage can placement. Mr. Vink indicates that he issued a "Notice of Violation" to the property owner at 7 Wideloop on August 13, 1998 to correct these items. We appreciate you letting us know about the deck that has apparently been built behind this house. Planning Director Lola Ungar will be reviewing this structure with the County of Los Angeles. We will let you know the results of our findings. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, '`1/(14 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 08/18/98leach.ltr cc: Lola Ungar, Planning Director Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager Roger Vink RHCA Architectural Inspector Printed on Recycled Paper. • • August 15, 1998 Mr. Craig R. Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Craig: Ig@OBVE AUG i 7 1998 5 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 CITY OF ROLLING }.ELLS Ry We have finally moved in and, with the landscaping underway, we expect our new home will be finished soon. Thank you again for helping us last December and January to ensure that the construction plans and setbacks were consistent with City regulations. Last January we also questioned the Association about an unsightly carport structure and garbage cans located next to our western property line (at 7 Wideloop). We were told that Roger would investigate, but nothing has changed. Peggy Minor suggested that we write to you, because the structure was recently built, it is located within the setback zone, it apparently was built without permits, and it violates City regulations. In addition at 7 Wideloop, a wooden deck was built behind the house (about two months ago), which overlooks and invades the privacy of our backyard. Does this structure conform to City and County regulations? Please let me know what we can do to correct these problems, and thank you for your help. Sincerely, William R. Leach cc: Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association •City ofieoffing JUL JODY MURDOCK Mayor B. ALLEN LAY Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 May 29, 1996 Dr. & Mrs. Juan Corredor 7 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 537 A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE COMPLETION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ILLEGAL ATTACHED GARAGE THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DISTURBED AREA FOR PROPERTY AT 7 WIDELOOP ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, LOT 8-EF. Dear Dr. Sr Mrs. Corredor: This letter shall serve as official notification that the Planning Commission Resolution in Zoning Case No. 537, which was denied by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on April 16, 1996, was received and filed by members of the Rolling Hills City Council at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. We have enclosed a copy of the staff report that was presented to the City Council relating to this application. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk corredor.l tr cc: Lola Ungar Principal Planner Mr. David Breiholz ®Printed on • • oty o/ R0/f .AIL DATE: MAY 28,1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4.A, Mtg. Date: 5/28/96 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 96-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor, 7 Wideloop (Lot 8-EF) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution denying the project on May 21, 1996 at their regular meeting. 2. The applicants requested a Variance to permit the completion of a 465 square foot garage that was built without permits that will encroach up to 15 feet into the 20 foot east side yard setback and will be 5 feet from the property line. In 1970, a Variance was granted to permit an addition to the west wing of the residence to the east at 5 Wideloop Road (Scott) that is located 13 feet 6 inches from the common property line. The total distance between residences to the east would be 18 feet 6 inches. At the west side of the property, the subject residence is 27 feet from the side property line. The distance of the adjacent residence to the west at 9 Wideloop Road (King) is 8 feet from the common property line. The total distance between residences to the west is 35 feet. The residences at 5, 7 and 9 Wideloop were constructed in 1952 prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1960. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 1 • • Total lot coverage existing and proposed is 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area and requires a Variance because it exceeds the 35% maximum permitted. The existing and proposed lot coverages are the same because the enclosed garage will replace the existing paved area. Structural lot coverage proposed is 10,050 square feet or 16.8% (20% maximum permitted). Existing and proposed maximum disturbed area is 24,740 square feet or 41.5% of the net lot area and requires a Variance because it exceeds the 40% permitted. 'Disturbed area is described as: Any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas)]. 3. The existing residence was originally built in 1952 with a variety of additions constructed in 1954, 1956, 1957; 1967 and 1982 that ranged from 155 square feet to 650 square feet in size resulting in a total 5,033 square foot residence and 640 square foot attached garage. The swimming pool was constructed in 1970 and the 823 square foot guest house was built in 1982. 4. The existing residential building pad is 17,340 square feet. Coverage on the pad had been 36.4% and as proposed will be 39%. The second building pad that contains a guest house and paddle tennis court has a. coverage of 87%. Total building pad coverage proposed is 47.6%. 5. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Wideloop Road to the garages at the eastern portion of the. residence. 6. Grading will not be required for the project. 7. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 96-9. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 2 CRITERIA do MAJOR IMPACTS RAS-1 Zone Setbacks; Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review requiredif size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, arty nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Residential Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum recommended) Guest House and Paddle Tennis Court Building Pad Coverage Total Building Pad Coverage Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 3 EXISTING There are no encroachments Residence Garage Swim Pool Paddle Tennis Ct. Guest House • TOTAL N/A 41.5% 9,585 sq.ft. or 16.1% 24,740 sq.ft. or 41.6% 36.4% 87% 45.4% PROPOSED The &arage will encroach 15' into the 20' side yard setback. 5,033 sq. ft. Residence 640 sq.ft. Garage 640 sq.ft. Swim Pool 2,592 sq.ft. Paddle Tennis Ct. 680 sq, Guest House 9,585 s i.ft. TOTAL Existing off Wideloop Road N/A N/A N/A None 41.5% 5,033 sq. ft. 1,105 sq.ft. 640 sq.ft. 2,592 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft, 10,050 sq.ft. 10,050 sq.ft. or 16.8% 24,740 sq.ft. or 41.6% 39% 87% 47.6% Existing off Wideloop Road N/A Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 4 RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor with respect to real property located at 7 Wideloop Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 8-EF) requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal attached garage that encroaches into the side yard setback. During the hearing process, additional requests for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area were introduced. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on February 20, 1996, March 19, 1996, and April 16, 1996, and at a field trip visit on March 9, 1996. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4, Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.070(A)(2) requires a maximum permitted lot coverage by structures and impervious surfaces to be thirty-five (35) percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a garage addition that along with other structures and impervious surfaces will cover 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the lot covered by structures and impervious surfaces for this RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 1 OF 4 • project would be 41.6% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the total lot coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because both the residence, garage, pool, paddle tennis court, guest house and impervious surfaces already cover 41.6% of the net lot area and additional structural coverage would exacerbate the amount of structural coverage on this lot. C. The granting of the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the lot, leaves little open space between property lines, would further restrict vehicular and pedestrian traffic, would result in further overdevelopment of the lot and far exceeds the maximum total lot coverage of 35%. This would make the proposed garage addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will exceed the maximum total lot coverage in Zoning Case No. 537. Section 6. Section 17.16.070(B) requires that the natural conditions on a lot to be maintained to the greatest degree possible and limits disturbance to forty (40) percent of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a garage addition that along with other structures and impervious surfaces will cover 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the maximum disturbed area by structures and impervious surfaces for this project would be 41.6% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the total lot coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because both the residence, garage, pool, paddle tennis court, and guest house and impervious surfaces already cover RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 2 OF 4 41.6% of the net lot area and additional structural coverage would exacerbate the amount of structural coverage on this lot. C. The granting of the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the lot, leaves little open space between property lines, would result in further overdevelopment of the lot and far exceeds the maximum coverage of 40%. The proposed garage addition is also visually prominent on the building pad due to its location in the side yard setback. Section Z, Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will exceed the maximum disturbed area in Zoning Case No. 537. Section 8. Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a 465 square foot garage addition which will encroach a maximum of fifteen (15) feet into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not *necessary because the building pad coverage for this project on the upper residential pad would be 39% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the building pad coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because a water feature and surrounding wall encroaches into the east side yard setback and additional encroachments would exacerbate the amount of residential structure within setback areas. C. The granting of the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the pad, leaves little open space between property lines, would result in further overdevelopment of the building pad and far exceeds the recommended coverage of 30%. The encroachment also makes the proposed garage addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 3 OF 4 Section 2, Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will encroach into the side yard setback in Zoning Case No. 537. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO1'1'bD ON THE 21ST DMA 1996. ATTEST: .k.v� MARILYN , DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ -�LLAN RUBtRTS, CHAIRMAN I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-9 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 21, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices KEIrN, (�^. ARI\� MLYN DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 4 OF 4