369, Addition to existing SFR with , Resolutions & Approval Conditionsr
RESOLUTION NO.
88-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 369
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 King with respect to real property located at No. 9 Wideloop,
Rolling Hills (Lot 7-A-EF) requesting a variance from the maximum lot
coverage limitation for buildings (20% net lot area) to permit
construction of a new garage and additional residential building
square footage.
Section 2. Planning Commission opened a duly noticed
public hearing on September 20, 1988 and continued it to a duly
noticed field trip on October 4, 1988 to which the applicant and all
members of the public were invited. The Commission resumed the
public hearing on October 18, 1988. The applicant appeared and spoke
in support of the application. The Commission has considered the
evidence, both written and oral, presented to it in connection with
this application.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Pursuant
to these sections, the Planning Commission finds that:
1. Applicant's property is located in the RAS-1 zone.
It contains 1.472 gross and 1.22 net acres and is presently developed
with a 3,769 square foot residence, a maximum requirement in the
RAS-1 zone for structures is 20% of net lot area. This property
currently has a non -conforming percentage of 20.47 (10,881 sq. ft.).
2. Applicants propose to expand the size of their
residence by 1,370 sq. ft., and to do so propose to build a new 620
square foot garage. The total structural square footage is 12,324
sq. ft., which is 23.19% of net lot coverage.. This exceeds the
maximum allowable by 3.19 percent.
3. The Planning Commission finds that there are no
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone that
prevent the owners from making use of the property to the same extent
enjoyed by similar properties. The applicants have not met their
burden of identifying and the Commission finds that there exists no
• •
physical feature of the property that makes use of the property
difficult or impracticable without a variance. Indeed, the property
presently contains a large residence with attached garage, a tennis
court and a swimming pool, thereby giving it additional structural
square footage.
4. The proposed additional structural square footage
would constitute a major incursion into the maximum lot coverage
requirement and would create a special privilege totally unjustified
by the factual circumstances. The Zoning Ordinance allows for
issuance of variances compelled by unusual physical characteristics
of property so as to give a property owner the same rights as
possessed by neighboring properties; in this case the variance would
allow the applicants to increase significantly the lot coverage
without justification, a circumstance that would give them a
privilege not enjoyed by others. The purpose of a variance is to
provide relief from an unusual condition of property which makes
reasonable use difficult when ordinary standards are applied; the
fact that a variance suits their plans, does not mean that its denial
will deprive applicants of reasonable use or enjoyment of their
property; and
5. The purpose of the maximum lot coverage requirement
is to provide residential properties with a development pattern that
is rural in character with a sense of openness and open space. The
property possesses a non -conforming structural maximum lot coverage
with its existing physical development. Grant of the variance would
provide the applicants with a privilege not accorded other property
owners with exactly the same physical circumstances, will be
detrimental to the principles of sound planning, inconsistent with
the goals of the zoning ordinance and detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the lot
coverage variance requested in Zoning Case No. 369 is hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of
October, 1988.
ATTEST:
Secretary
Chairman