428, Garage addition, to extend int, Staff Reports0414*
STAFF REPORT
* * * * •
DATE: AUGUST 15, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 428; Request for Modification to previously
approved site plan to construct additions to the residence and to
amend the Resolution of approval accordingly; 6 Flying Mane Road,
Lot 61-A-SF; Owner: Stucker
DISCUSSION
The City received a letter on August 7, 1990, from Mrs. Lavonne Stucker
requesting modification to the project approved by the Commission this
past June. At the previous meeting, the Commission granted a variance and
site plan review to construct 480 square feet of home addition and 540
square feet of attached garage, which encroached into the rear and front
yard setbacks of the property. The applicant desires to add an additional
527 square feet of living area (1,007 sq. ft. total). As indicated on the
revised site plan, the proposed additions (darker shade) will result in no
greater incursion (follow building lines) into the yards requiring
variance than originally proposed or existing. The Commission will recall
that the subject lot was generally shallow with greater setback
requirements due to double street frontage, and the additions originally
proposed would bring the size of the residence to a more consistent size
with the neighboring developments.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission closely evaluate the
proposed modification regarding the compatibility of mass structure
development on the subject lot. The Commission may wish to inspect the
lot again, or consider action on the request should they feel comfortable
with their recollection of the site and original request.
zc428mod
C1iy `RO/IL Jh/h
MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 1991
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 428, MR. AND MRS. DALE STUCKER
6 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 61-A-SF)
BACKGROUND
Attached is a request by Mr. and Mrs. Dale Stucker for a one year
time extension for a Variance and Site Plan which will expire June
30, 1991 as required in Paragraph B, Section 9 of Resolution No.
90-14, approved on June 30, 1990. Subsequently, on September 15,
1990, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the
previously approved Site Plan and Variance and amended the
previous resolution of approval to permit an additional 527 square
feet be added to the proposed residential structure for a total
5,380 square feet which constitutes 20% of the lot.
Mrs. Stucker cites the requirements of the plan check process for
the necessity of a one year time extension.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission review the case.
0**
STAFF REPORT
•
DATE: June 11, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 428; Request for a Variance to encroach into the
rear and front yard setbacks to construct additions to the
existing residence and garage, and Site Plan Review to determine
compatibility of proposed additions; 6 Flying Mane Road, Lot
61-A-SF; Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Dale Stucker
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of May 15, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
conduct a field inspection of the subject site and surrounding properties.
At the field inspection, it was noted that the lot is somewhat shallow
with the rear section of the lot sloping down to Crest Road, and the
proposed 1,020 square feet of additions (480 SF residential, 540 SF
garage) will be constructed on existing level area with no further
grading.
Issues that were to be addressed from the previous meeting on the matter
are as follows:
1. The applicant desires to continue the existing building line at
the front yard, thereby resulting in no greater incursion into the front
yard setback than currently existing from Flying Mane Road.
2. The applicant's design professional has indicated an additional
calculation for the flat "buildable" area,. but "Existing buildable area"
in accordance with the ordinance shall mean "that portion of a lot that
constitutes the existing building pad and any other contiguous portion of
the lot within allowable setbacks that has an average slope of ten percent
(10%) or less". With said requirement, the buildable area, on the other
hand, is restricted to a small area due to the yard setbacks on this
property. Lot coverages are within code limits (18.5% structure, 28.1%
total).
3. A "future" stable area has been sited on a revised plot plan
submitted to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with the zoning requirements
addressing yard standards and development compatibility. In order before
a variance may be granted, the Commission must determine that there are
special circumstances applicable to the property, special privileges are
not granted, and it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property. Further, the Commission must determine that
the findings required for site plan review approval as set forth by the
ordinance are satisfied.
zc428#2
• •
DATE: April' 310, 1990
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION:
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT:
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case No. 428
6 Flying Mane Road, Lot 61-A-SF
RAS-1
Mr. and Mrs. Dale Stucker
Richard Linde, Architect
May 5, 1990
26,288 SF Net; approximately rectangular, Through
lot- double roadway frontage
Single family residence, garage, pool
A Variance to encroach into the rear and front yard setbacks
to construct additions to the existing residence and garage;
Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of proposed
additions and new attached garage
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES,
In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would
identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The applicant is requesting a variance and site plan review to
construct 1,020 square feet (480 sf residential, 540 sf garage) of
structure addition which will encroach into the prescribed rear and front
yard setbacks, and increase the area of the residential structure by more
than 25 percent.
2. Section 17.16.080 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard of
50 feet from the property line, however, when a rear yard abuts a street
(Crest Road), it shall meet the front yard requirement of 50 feet from the
easement (Sections 17.08.280 and 17.16.060). This requirementwould
thereby reduce the amount of area that is buildable and complies with yard
setbacks. Correspondingly, the existing residence encroaches into the
"rear" yard and is thus nonconforming. The applicant desires to expand
the rear of the residence, and reduce the setback to a minimum of 37.52
feet from the easement line.
3. The existing residence also encroaches into the front yard
setback to a maximum of approximately 15 feet. The applicant desires to
construct a new attached three -car garage, thus allowing the conversion of
the existing attached garage to living space. This portion of the project
calls for no further incursion into the front yard setback than currently
existing. The driveway is existing.
4. The applicant's design professional has indicated that no further
grading is necessary, and that lot coverage totals do not exceed that
permitted (18.5% structure, 28.1% total). The Commission may wish to
evaluate buildable pad coverage, and direct the applicant to provide said
calculation.
zc428
page 2
5. The plan must be amended to include a future stable site and
access to the site shown.
6. Landscaping requirements should be addressed regarding retention
and/or replacement of vegetation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in acordance with the zoning requirements
addressing yard standards and development compatibility. In order before
a variance may be granted, the Commission must determine that there are
special circumstances applicable to the property, spceial privileges are
not granted, and it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property. The Commission should receive public
testimony and continue the matter to an adjourned meeting so as to inspect
the site and surrounding properties.
zc428rh