503, Construct 2 trellis, one on th, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 94-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SEPARATE TRELLISES, ONE AT THE
EAST END OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ONE
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WITH EACH TRELLIS
ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN ZONING CASE
NO. 503.
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.
James Dodson with respect to real property located at 7 Morgan
Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 170-4-MS) requesting Variances to
construct two separate trellises, one at the east end of the
existing single-family residence and one at the west side of the
property. The east trellis would be attached to the house and
encroach 15 feet into the side yard setback. The west trellis
would be detached from the house and encroach 17 feet into the side
yard setback.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for a Variance on
December 21, 1993 and January 18, 1994, and at a field trip visit
on January 15, 1994.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Section 17.38.010(A) permits 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.120(B)(1) is required to
construct a trellis addition to the residence in the thirty-five
(35) foot side yard setback along the east side of the property.
The applicant is requesting a 320 square foot trellis addition at
the east end of the residence that will encroach up to a maximum of
15 feet into the east side yard setback. The Planning Commission
finds:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that
apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and
zone. The Variance is not necessary because most of the residence
is not constructed within required setbacks, the trellis addition
as proposed would create a visual impact from easements and trails,
RESOLUTION NO. 94-5
PAGE 2
and there is ample space outside of setback areas to construct a
trellis.
B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial propertyright possessed by other
property inthe same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the
property in question because most surrounding properties are
developed within required setbacks and trellis structures in side
yard setbacks are not a predominant development pattern in the
City.. In addition, the proposed trellis addition would result in
a building pad coverage of 45% that the Planning Commission finds
to be excessive.
C. The granting of this Variance will be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is
located because the,proposed additions do not minimize structural
encroachments. The proposed Variance would allow the proposed
trellis addition to be closer to other existing residences than
appropriate for the required setbacks and leaves even less open
space between easements and structures.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for a
320 square foot trellis addition at the east end of the residence
that will encroach up to a maximum of 15 feet into the east side
yard setback.
Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.120(B)(1) is required
to construct a free-standing trellis in the thirty-five (35) foot
side yard setback along the west side of the property. The
applicant is requesting a 190 square foot trellis at the west end
of the pool deck that will encroach up to a maximum of 17 feet into
the west side yard setback. The Planning Commission finds:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that
apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and
zone. The Variance is not necessary because most of the residence
is constructed within required setbacks, the trellis as proposed
would visually impact the adjacent easement and trail, and would be
visible from the street. There is ample space outside the setback
areas to construct a trellis.
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 most surrounding properties are
developed within required setbacks and trellis structures in side
yard setbacks are not a predominant development pattern in the
City. In addition, the proposed trellis would result in a building
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 94-5
PAGE 3
pad coverage of 45% that the Planning Commission finds to be
excessive.
C. The granting of this Variance will be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is
located because the proposed additions do not minimize structural
encroachments. The proposed Variance would allow the proposed
trellis to be closer to other existing residences than appropriate
for the required setbacks and leaves even less open space between
easements and structures.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance to permit the
construction of a trellis at the west side of the property within
the side -yard setback and denies a request for a Variance to permit
the construction of a trellis addition at the east end of the
residence within the side yard setback in Zoning Case No. 503.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THI= T' DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1994.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ss
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-5 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SEPARATE TRELLISES, ONE AT THE
EAST END OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ONE
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WITH EACH TRELLIS
ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN ZONING CASE
NO. 503.
• s
RESOLUTION NO. 94-5
PAGE 4
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on February 5, 1994 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Lay
ABSTAIN: None
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the
following:
Administrative Offices
(tea
DEPUTY CITY `CLERK