Loading...
328, Remodel existing non-conformin, Staff Reportsr TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RECOIS1:Ti DAUTT: City Council Agenda September 22, 1986 4 5b Honorable Mayor and. Members of the City Council 1 Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager) 5 Zoning Case No. 328 - variance for Front Yard Setback E7ncroachmcnt Resolution of Ratification (3a.nkovich) t is recomiamended t.hi:.i:. the Resolution of Ratification regarding Zoning Case Iic 326 be approved, as determined by previous Council action on September 8 r 1986. ,u1�.CKQ?QUP: The City Council consi.dered'tze matter of Zoning Case No. 328 at its meeting of September 6r 1986. 1:t the ,September 3r 1986 meeting, the City Council rejected the appeal regarding Zoning Case Igo. 328 and sustained the decision of the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission approved the application for a variance which would permit the encroachment into the front yard setback of a new residential structure at 35 Saddleback Road. The City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Ratification regarding Zoning Case No„ 326, The Resolution is presented to you i0i your consideration and actions 'J"_,SCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. City Council Agenda August 25, 1986 #5b TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 328 - Variance Application (Jankovich) BACKGROUND: The City Counci continued the matter of Zoning Case No. 328 to the meeting of August 25, 1986. The purpose for the continuation was to have staff research the process by which the deck area and the 8 foot screening fence, located upon it, were approved. In December 1972, the then owner of the property, at 35 Saddleback Road, Mr. Keith Slingsby, had plans for the installation of'decking around the swimming pool approved. Also approved at that time, as a part of the overall plan, was an 8 foot screening wall located on the easterly perimeter of the proposed new decking. The plans for the decking and the screening wall were approved, by the Rolling Hills Community association Architectural Committee. Subsequent to approval, the applicant did build. the decking and screenign wall, pursuant to the plans. In December 1972, at the time the Architectural Committee reviewed the decking and fence plans, as submitted by Mr. Slingsby, the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance had a front yard setback requirement of 30 feet. The decking plan proposed by Mr. Slingsby did not encroach into the minimum setback of 30 feet. Consequently, the proposed fence did not encroach into the minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. In that the proposed plans were in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at that time, the review and approval of the plans did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. In 1979, the City of Rolling Hills adopted new minimum front yard setback requirements. Ordinance No. 169 changed the minimum front -yard setback, from 30 feet, to 50 feet. With the adoption of Ordinance No. 169, the decking and fence located at 35 Saddleback Road became non -conforming structures. SUMMARY: It is found that the decking and screening fence, located at 35 Saddleback Road, were constructed in compliance with the then existing regulations of the City of Rolling Hills, and the Rolling Hills Community association. Further, it is found that the decking and screening fence became non -conforming structures only after the adoption of new front yard setback requirements, pursuant to Ordinance No. 169. Item 3 August 8, 1986 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Case Number 328 - Front Yard Encroachment Variance (Jankovich) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the scheduled public hearing for public comment after receiving complete public comment to continue the public hearing to your August 25, 1986 meeting. Further, it is recommended that the City Council schedule an on -site field trip to evaluate the property. BACKGROUND: The Rolling Hills Planning Commission approved Variance Application No. 328 of Tom Jankovich, 35 Saddleback Road. The Variance requested an encroachment into the 50 foot front yard setback, of 22 feet. The Variance would allow the applicant to build a portion of a residential structure 22 feet into the front yard setback. The Variance Application approval was reviewed by the City Council at its meeting of July 14, 1986. At that meeting the City Council called up for review, and thereby took jurisdiction, of Zoning Case No. 328. The City Council, at that time, set the matter for public hearing for August 11, 1986. The purpose of the Variance is to provide exceptions to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance result, through the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance's provision. A Variance may be authorized when it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, so that the spirit of the Ordinance may be observed, public safety and welfare security and substantial justice done. Before a Variance may be granted, three conditions must be shown: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply, generally, to other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 2. That such 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 owner in question. 3. That the grading of such Variance will not 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. • Item 3, 8/8/86 Page 2 The Variance relates to the possible impairment of full utilization of the applicant's property due to its configuration and topography. Because full utilization of the property is at question, vis a vis the encroachment into the front yard setback, it would be advisable that the City Council schedule a field trip to personally inspect this site as to the issues raised by the applicant. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.