none, Addition & Renovation, Staff ReportsMEMO TO FILE:
January 2, 2001
RE: 63 Crest Road East (prior to 1990 known as 13 and 17 Crest
Road East)
At the request of a real estate agent, City staff conducted research on the above
mentioned property to determine the status of the existing, non -primary structure on site,
located south-east of the riding ring.
After reviewing building permits, and conversations with the building official, with
Peggy Minor, Association Manager, and a former chairperson of the Planning
Commission (Ms. Jody Murdock), staff has determined that the existing non -primary
structure may be used as a guest house.
Based on the above research the non -primary structure was constructed at the same time
as the primary residence, between 1955-1956, prior to City of Rolling Hills
incorporation. Although this structure was not finaled until 1960, it has been used as a
residence while the main house was being constructed.
During a public hearing conducted in January 1980 for a variance and site plan for a
proposed guest house, swimming pool, spa and a deck, a former Planning Commissioner,
Mr. Hanscom, referred to the proposed guest house as a second "guest house" and
questioned whether it was necessary to build another guest house. The architect replied
that the proposed structure shown on the plan as a guest house and located next to the
proposed improvements will be used as a recreation room. (The proposed improvements
were not constructed). From this conversation one can determine that the "other
(existing) structure" was being used as a guest house.
Based on all of the above evidence, it has been determined that the structure located
beyond the riding ring and south-east thereof is considered a legal -nonconforming
structure and it may be utilized as a guest house.
PUBLIC HEARING, ZON1 ''ASE NO. 244,. WILLIAM WARTZ
Chairman Murdock opened a meeting of a publh hearing tow considera request by Mr. William Lennartz, 63 Crest Road East, for a variance
of side yard requirements for construction of a swimming pool, spa,
deck and guest house in the side yard, and a conditional use permit
for the guest house. The Clerk reported that the hearing was duly
noticed as required by law, and that no comment, written or verbal,
was received in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Commissioner Hanscom asked whether a request for a second guest
house was proper, since there is a guest house on the property. Mr.
Lennartz said that although the request was filed as a guest house,
the intended use would be as a recreational building adjacent to the
swimming pool and spa, and a tennis court already on the property. •
The plan was reviewed, and certain discrepancies were noted, including
lack of a barn on the plan, although square footage for a barn was
included in the computation of lot coverage, and there is a barn on the
property. Mr. Lennartz said that although the correct square footage
of the main residence was included in the computation. the r,-ou,- . --
the hnnec,
45-2Fe
ZONING CASE NO. 244, WILLIAM LENNARTZ, 63 CREST ROAD EAST 347 Te,d-Iiifg�
Chairman Murdock opened discussion of a request by Mr. William
Lennartz for a Side Yard Varaince for a Guest House, Pool, Spa and
Deck in the Side Yard of Lot 70-B-2-MS, and a Conditional Use Permit
for the Guest House.
Mr. Douglas McHattie represented Mr. Lennartz, and submitted a
revised plan showing the improvements in a legal location in the side
yard, and he explained that in order to conform with the regulations
regarding side yards it would be necessary to reduce the size of the
proposed guest house from 800 square feet to 570 square feet, and to
locate the swimming pool immediately adjacent to the existing tennis
court, and eliminate the proposed deck area between the tennis court and
swimming pool. The plan was marked "A -revised" for the file.
In discussing the matter members of the Commission agreed that if
possible improvements on a large property should be made without request-
ing variances, and since it was possible to improve the Lennartz property
without going into the required side yard set back, no hardship was demon-
strated. Chairman Murdock asked whether any other location was considered
for the swimming pool. Mr. McHattie said no other location was considered
because Mr. Lennartz wishes to develop a recreation area, and the proposed
guest house would actually be a, recreation building to be used in conjunc-
tion with the tennis court and pool. Commissioner Watts asked about land-
scaping, and Mr. McHattie said the Board of Directors -approved planting
in the 25 foot easement to screen the property from the trail.
Following the discussion, Commissioner Hanscom moved that the request
for a variance of side yard setback be denied since hardship was not
demonstrated, it would be possible to make the desired improvements
without projecting into the side yard, and a variance would not be in
keeping with appropriate development of the property. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Watts and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Field, Hanscom, Roberts, Watts
Chairman Murdock
None
•
()ay 0/ Ailing
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
AGENDA ITEM 4-B
MEETING DATE 1/25/93
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 506
Mr. and Mrs. William R. Lennartz, 63 Crest Road East
(Lot 70-B-2-MS)
RESOLUTION NO. 94-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE
ENCROACHMENT OF ROOM ADDITIONS IN ZONING CASE NO.
506.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution on
January 19, 1994.
2. A previous application was approved in 1985. Those approvals
expired and the applicants have reapplied at this time.
3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit 3 room
additions that total 637 square feet on the east end of their
residence that encroach 42, 43 and 2 feet into the front yard
setback.
4. Special conditions of the Planning Commission's approval are:
(1) that the residential additions be one story and not two
story in height with no habitable space over other habitable
space, (2) that there be no expansion of the existing 1,050
square feet of legal nonconforming second story space in the
residence or into any other portion of the residence, (3) that
the existing height of myoporum bushes along Crest Road be
maintained at 73 to 83 inches, to be replaced if they become
diseased or die with an equivalent dense hedge of drought -
resistant native plants or plants that are compatible with the
surrounding vegetation of the community to block the view of
the residence from Crest Road, and (4) that a mature tree of
a maximum height of 'between 20 and 30 feet replace the
existing pine tree that will be removed for constructin at the
east portion of the residence.
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 14,172 square feet or
6.28% and the total lot coverage proposed is 27,286 square
feet or 12.08%.
®�'rinind or FR �(.I r;d Py��wr.
• •
•
ZONING CASE NO. 506
PAGE 2
6. The building pad coverage proposed is 6,236 square feet or
19.1% for the residential building pad and 42,979 square feet
for pad coverage for both building pads or 33%.
7. Access to the property will not be affected and will continue
along the west. property line.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution
No. 94-2.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 94-2
D1AFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF ROOM ADDITIONS IN ZONING
CASE NO. 506.
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 Mr. and Mrs.
William Lennartz with respect to real property located at 63 Crest
Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 70-B-2-MS) requesting a Variance to
permit three room additions to the residence that encroach 42, 43,
and 2 feet, respectively, into the front yard setback.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing and field trip to consider the application for a
previously approved Variance on January 15, 1994 and at a public
hearing on January 18, 1994. At the hearings, the Commission heard
evidence that the residence includes a 1,050 square foot legal
nonconforming second story that is used for bedroom space.
Section 3. On March 19, 1985, the Planning Commission
approved similar Variance requests for this property in Zoning Case
No. 310. Those approvals expired and the applicants have reapplied
at this time.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.110 is required to
construct a master bedroom addition in the fifty (50) foot front
yard setback. The applicants are requesting three separate
residential additions, a 581 square foot master bedroom addition at
the northeast portion of the house, a 56 square foot laundry room
at the northern portion of the house and a bay window at the
southeast side of the master bedroom. The master bedroom addition
will encroach a maximum of 42 feet, the laundry room will encroach
a maximum of 43 feet, and the bay window will encroach a maximum of
2 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback.
Section 6. With respect to this application for a Variance,
the Planning Commission finds:
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 94-2
PAGE 2
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do
not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and
zone. The Variance is necessary because of the unique typography
of the lot which, as developed, has multiple pad levels that are
relatively narrow at the back and relatively wide and flat at the
front. In addition, the proposed encroachment is less than the
existing front yard encroachments of other portions of the
residence. Although the residence is near the street, it is
screened and obscured by dense shrubbery and there is a spacious
open feel to the property. The residence is isolated and does not
impact Crest Road. There are no residences close by to be
affected. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion
of the lot to remain undeveloped.
B. This Variance is 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. The Variance is necessary because the
existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested
additions from being built into the rear yard. The location of the
additions is the only logical and reasonable site for expansion of
the residential structure.
C. The granting of this Variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is
located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion
of the lot to remain undeveloped and any removal of mature trees
and vegetation will be replaced with equivalent native plants and
trees to screen and obscure the residence from Crest Road.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to allow three room
additions to the existing residence to encroach 42, 43, and 2 feet,
respectively, into the front yard setback as indicated on the
Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A,
subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from
the effective date of approval as defined in Section
17.38.070(A)(1) of the Municipal Code.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance
approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit
shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall
lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice
to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of
thirty (30) days.
A T
RESOLUTION NO. 94-2
PAGE 3
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction
Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the
subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise
approved by Variance.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The residential additions shall be one story and not two
stories in height, as such terms are defined in the Rolling Hills
Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, no new habitable space shall be
constructed above any other level of habitable space. If any
residential additions are constructed with a second story of
habitable space, the approvals granted by this resolution shall be
null and void.
F. There shall be no expansion of the existing 1,050 square
feet of legal nonconforming second story space in the residence.
In addition, no expansion or extension of a second story of
habitable space into any other portion of the existing residence or
into any portion of residential additions shall be permitted. In
the event the conditions of this paragraph are violated, the
approvals granted by this resolution shall be null and void.
G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed
19.1% and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 33%.
H. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the
issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan
submitted shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) The landscape plan shall comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate
existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to
the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area
and/or consistent with the rural character of the community;
(2) Special emphasis shall be incorporated into the
landscaping plan to ensure that the residence and the residential
additions are blocked from view from Crest Road. The existing
myoporum hedge along Crest Road shall be maintained to not less
than or more than the existing height of 73 to 83 inches so as to
block the view of the residence from Crest Road. In the event the
myoporum hedge becomes diseased or dies, it shall be replaced with
a dense hedge of drought -resistant native plants or plants that are
compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community to a
height of not less than or more than 73 to 83 inches so as to block
the view of the residence from Crest Road;
DR
RESOLUTION NO. 94-2
PAGE 4
(3) A mature tree that will grow and\or be maintained to
a maximum height of between 20 and 3,0 feet shall be planted near
the east portion of the residence in the front yard to replace the
existing pine tree that will be removed to construct the room
additions; and
(4) A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the
implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required
to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and
shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the
City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping
was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and
that such landscaping is properly established and in good
condition.
I. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan
to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and
drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports
that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must
conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
J. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permit.
K. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
L. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a
modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission shall require the filing of an application for
modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.46.070 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
M. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of these Variances and Site Plan Review or the
approvals shall not be effective.
N. All conditions of the Variance approval must be complied
with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
• •
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 94-2
PAGE 5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1994.
ALLAN ROBERTS CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ss
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-2 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF ROOM ADDITIONS IN ZONING
CASE NO. 506.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on January 19, 1994 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the
following:
Administrative Offices
DEPUTY CITY CLERK