Loading...
362, Construction of a reflecting p, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• • RESOLUTION NO. 57S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PONDS IN THE FRONT YARD OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 CREST ROAD WEST (ZONING CASE NO. 362) THE CITY COUNCIL 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. Yu -Ping Liu with respect to real property located at No. 39 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 240B-2-MS) requesting a variance to permit construction of a reflecting pond in the front yard setback and extension of a covered walkway into the front yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed, public hearing to consider the application on May 17, June 21 and July 19, 1988. After considering the evidence, both written and oral, the Commission approved the application for a reflecting pond and denied the appli- cation for extension of the covered walkway. Section 3. At its meeting of August 8, 1988, the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.32.140(c) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, appealed and assumed jurisdiction of the Commission's approval of the reflecting pond. No appeal was taken from the denial of the extension of the covered walkway; the Planning Commission's decision is, accord- ingly, final. Section 4. On September 13, 1988, the City Council open a duly noticed, de novo public hearing pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.32.190 to consider the application for a variance for a reflecting pond. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. The applicant appeared before the Council in support of the application. The Council's deliberations were adjourned to a duly noticed field trip on September 24, 1988 and to a continued public hearing on September 26, 1988. • Section 5. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a variance from the standards, and require- ments 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 City Council finds that: A. The subject property has a nonconforming front yard setback. The purpose of the front yard setback is to provide residential property with a landscaped yard unencumbered by structures in the most visible portion of the lot. B. The proposed ponds would be integrated into the front yard landscaping treatment and would beautify, rather than detract from, the appearance of the front yard. Thus, approval of the application would not be detrimental to the goals of the Zoning Ordinance. C. Were it not for the nonconforming size of the front yard, the reflecting pond could be constructed without need for a variance. The small size of the yard is the physical feature that denies applicant the opportunity to utilize a unique landscaping treatment that could otherwise be enjoyed by other properties in the same area. D. Construction of the reflecting pond would not constitute a special privilege because it simply allows for an additional landscape treatment in the front yard. E. The grant of a variance under these circum- stances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance as long as the conditions of this Variance are adhered to. r • • Section 6. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the Variance for Case No. 362 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. day of PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this llth October , 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The foregoing Resolution No. 578 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PONDS'IN THE FRONT YARD OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 CREST ROAD WEST (ZONING CASE NO. 362) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting on October 11, 1988 by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Pernell Swanson, Mayor Murdock NOES: None ABSENT: None • • BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application ) of ) Zoning Case No. 362 Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu ) Lot 240B-2-MS ) FINDINGS AND REPORT The application of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu, Lot 240B-2-MS, Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came for hearing on the 17th day of May 1988, the 21st day of June 1988 and the 19th day of July 1988, in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. The Planning Commission, after being properly advised, now makes its Findings and Report as required by the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California. I. The Commission finds that the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu, are the owners of that certain real property described as Lot 240B-2-MS, located at 39 Crest Road West in the City of Rolling Hills, and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said application was given as required by Section 17.32.080 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California. The Commission finds, further, that verbal comment, was received in support of the request. Further, that there was no comment in opposition to the request. II. The Commission finds that the applicants have requested a Variance from Section 17.16.060 minimum front yard setback requirement. The property is a nonconforming lot of 1.67 net acres (72,708 sq. ft.) in size, which is located in the RAS - 2 zone (87,120 sq. ft.). The lot has a nonconforming front yard setback of 35'.0". • • Page Two The applicants have requested a 30'.0" encroachment into the minimum front yard setback for the purpose of constructing an extension to the covered entry way. Also, the applicants have requested a 40'.0" encroachment into the minimum front yard setback for the purpose of constructing a reflecting pond. The encroachment of 30'.0" into the front yard setback would result in a minimum front yard setback of 20'.0". The encroachment of 40'.0" into the front yard setback would result in a minimum front yard setback of 10'.0". The applicants indicate that the proposed improvements to the existing residence and property are most logically expanded within the established building pad area. Therefore, the applicants request the granting of the Variance so that they may have the same rights to property as others in the same vicinity and zone, which would otherwise be denied if they were not able to fully utilize the existing building pad area. The applicants assert that there are significant topographical and physical conditions which exist on the property, which impinge upon the applicants' ability to fully utilize their property, without damaging the environment. The applicants assert that a Variance should be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone. From the foregoing, it is concluded that a Variance should be: 1. Denied as to the request for an encroachment into front yard setback of 30'.0" for the purpose of extending the front entry way roof. The Planning Commission finds that: • • Page Three A. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone that pre- vent the owners from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. The appli- cants 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 diffi- cult or impracticable without a variance; B. The proposed encroachment into the front yard would constitute a major incursion into the setback and would create a special privilege totally unjustified by the factual circumstances. The Zoning Ordinance allows for characteristics of property so as to give a property owner the same rights as possessed by neigh- boring properties; in this case the variance would allow the the applicants to develop significantly into their front yard without justification, a circumstance that would give them a privilege not enjoyed by others. The purpose of a variance is to provide re- lief 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 C. The purpose of the front yard setback is to provide residential properties with a landscaped yard unen- cumbered by structures in the front yard of their homes where most visible from the street. This prop- erty fronts on Crest Road, a major and most travelled thoroughfare of the City. This property possesses a • • Page Four nonconforming front yard and despite its existing physical development, has additional room within the setbacks to expand the existing residence. Grant of the variance would be inconsistent with the very pur- pose of the setback requirement without justification. 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, in- consistent with the goals of the zoning ordinance and detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 2. Granted as to the encroachment of 40'.0" into the front yard setback for the purpose of constructing a reflecting pond. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The Planning Commission finds that there are excep- tional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and applicable to other similar prop- erties 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 met their burden of identifying and the Commission finds that there exists physical features of the property that makes use of the property difficult or impracticable without a variance; B. The proposed encroachment into the front yard would not constitute a major structural incursion into the setback and would not create a special privilege to- tally unjustified by the factual circumstances. The Zoning Ordinance allows for issuance of variances • • Page Five compelled unusual physical characteristics of property so as to give a property owner the same rights as pos- sessed by neighboring properties; in this case the variance would allow the applicants to develop essen- tially a landscape element in their front yard with justification, a circumstance that would not give them a privilege enjoyed by others. The purpose of a variance is to provide relief from an unusual condi- tion of property which makes reasonable use difficult when ordinary standards are applied; and C. The purpose of the front yard setback is to provide residential properties with a landscaped yard in the front yard of their homes. Although this property possesses a nonconforming front yard and despite its existing physical development, the construction of a reflecting pond at grade or below would be considered a landscaping element. Grant of the variance would be consistent with the purpose of the setback requirement with justification. Grant of the variance would not provide the applicants with a privilege not accorded other property owners with exactly the same physical circumstances, will not be detrimental to the princi- ples of sound planning, consistent with goals of the zoning ordinance and not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The request for a variance to encroach 40'0" into the front yard setback for the purpose of constructing a reflecting pond should be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The front yard Page Six encroachment into the minimum front extend beyond 40'.0"; 2) The pond so as to be mitigate the visibility The landscaping plan be approved by yard setback for the pond not be constructed on grade or below of the pond from Crest Road; 3) the City; and, a bond in the amount of estimate for the cost of landscaping, plus 15%, be posted after landscape installation, for not less than two years; 4) The variance approval be contingent upon the approval of the applicant's architectural plans by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee; 5) The variance approval be contingent upon a certification as to the corrected lot coverage data, performed by a California registered professional engineer; 6) This project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. It is, therefore, so ordered. /s/ Allan Roberts Chairman, Planning Commission /s/ Terrence L. Belanaer Secretary, Planning Commission