none, Construct fireplace 10 ft high, ApplicationJAN 081993
Ci, O/ RO/ft 9
INCORPGaintoORAMBING4,Hat
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
APPLICATION FILE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 474
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
73 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS
OWNER: MR. AND MRS. MOON KIM
I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission
on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
SIGNED / V:-
ti
DATE: / /R/Q
FEE: /, (RT7)
(Two-thirds of original application fee)
• •
flACHMENT 9:
The Planning Commission decision is founded upon three issues. As discussed
hereafter, the decision is not supported by the evidence and is erroneous and/or an abuse
of discretion.
1. The Planning Commission objects to the building pad coverage of 31.98 % as
it causes "over -development of the building pad" and "is a higher building pad coverage
than appropriate under the existing development pattern of the City". However, the City
has oftentimes approved projects with building pad coverage of 40 or 45 %, particularly
when the total lot coverage is relatively small, as is the case here, with total lot
coverage of only 12.6%. (City code allows total lot coverage of up to 35%).
The commission states: "This over -development of the building pad leaves
little open space". It is difficult to fathom how a total lot coverage of only 12.6% which
includes structures and hard-scape constitutes "little open space".
2. The Planning Commission states that the permit would be inconsistent "with
the purpose and objectives of the zoning ordinance and general plan", because it creates
"a prominent large structural improvement on this hillside, which is not compatible with
the general plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in
the City."
a. Firstly, the proposed detached garage is 650 sq. ft., is not a
"prominently large structure" and , in fact, is not dissimilar to the minimum stable
requirements of the City of 450 sq. ft. If this proposed garage is such a "prominent large
structural improvement" as to be incompatible with the zoning ordinance and general
plan, then the City would have to likewise deny a permit for the construction of the
stable at this property, or for stables at any other property.
' K M
• •
b. This proposed detached garage is indeed "low -profile" as it cannot be
seen from within the homes of any neighboring residences or from the
street. In fact only the Essers at 71 Crest Road have any ability to see this structure,
and at that, will see only the roof of the structure and only if they walk out of their
home to the edge of their yard.
3. The Commission objects to 185 cu. yds. of cut and fill. However, the
proposed cut and fill is very minimal.
a. The Commission states that "extension of the building pad would create
a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location of the
site". This is inaccurate as highlighted by the plot plan and the fact that this is a very
private site, as discussed above and visual impact is deminimis.
b. The Commission states that "the proposed development is not
harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences". This, again, is inaccurate, recalling that the proposal seeks to add only a
650 sq. ft. detached garage, bringing total lot coverage to only 12.6% on a very private
lot location.
It is respectfully requested that the City Council grant Zoning Case No. 474.