537, Construct garage with encroach, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
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 7. 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 9. 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 ADOPTED ON THE 21ST DMA 1996.
ATTEST:
=1Q(, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
§§
-- -ALLAN RZTB RTS, 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
MARILYN KE ',DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 96-9
PAGE 4 OF 4