Loading...
329, Remodel existing SFR & garage,, Staff Reports1 City Council Agenda September 22, 1986 43b TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 329 - Variance for Encroachment into side yard setback and established front yard (Hawkins) On September 10, 1986e the City Council made a field trip to the subject property at 37 Crest Road West. At that time, it was determined tilat a boundary and topographical survey was needed to better understand the relationship of property lines and easement lines to the existing residential structure. The Hawkins have submitted a boundary and topographical survey, pursuant to the City' t request. At the point closest to the westerly boundary of the property, the existing residence is 42.74 feet. At the point closest to the eastern boundary of the property, the existing residence is 16 feet. The fence located on the westerly side of the property lies one foot inside the property line. Me fence on the eastern side of the property as of this time, has not been finally determined in relationship to the property line and easement. Attached to this brief memorandum are the other materials the City Council have previously received pertaining to Zoning Case No. 329. City Council Agenda September 9, 1986 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager (�) SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 329 (Hawkins) l The staff report dated August 25, 1986 regarding Zoning Case No. 329 is included in you packet as staff material for this public hearing. Also included in your packet, for your information, is a copy of the site plan and area map. This is in the staff report. • • ROGER E. HAWKINS* LAURENCE H. SCHNABEL* GEORGE M. LINDAHL KELLEY K. BECK JON P. KARDASSAKIS WILLIAM E. KEITEL KAREN D. UNTIEDT DANIEL E. CASAS MICHAEL M. YOUNGDAHL FRANK R. ACUNA FRANKLYN W. PERKOVICH JOSE R. BENAVIDES •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HAWKINS, SCHNABEL & LINDAHL A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, 415T FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 687-7777 September 4, 1986 CABLE ADDRESS "HASLIN" TELEX 183934 TELECOPIER (213) 621-2807 WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER (213) 687-7700 Members of City Council City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 329 Dear City Council Members: This letter is submitted to summarize the principal reasons we feel the referenced variances ought to be granted. EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES: 37 Crest Road West is an RAS-1 size parcel located in an RAS-2 zone. Its net size is nearly 10,000 square feet smaller than a minimum size RAS-2 lot. The residence is positioned off the longitudinal midline of the property at a particularly narrow spot roughly 200 feet wide. From the day the City allowed the Richard Colyear lot split which created this parcel, the residence was positioned over 200 feet back from Crest Road. The west end of the house is 44 feet from the property line. The east end of the house is 16 feet from the property line. In the rear, the lot dwindles in size with that size further diminished in usable space by a swimming pool and extensive decking (48' x 68') and large patio area located outside the living room and dining room. In addition to the limited rear yard space available for development, the lot slopes in this part of the property. These circumstances combine to landlock this house and prevent optimum use of it and the surrounding property for so long as RAS-2 building restrictions are applied to this non RAS-2 size lot creating the hardship from which we seek relief. Contrary to plans of the property prepared in connection with variances sought by a previous owner, former City Mayor Mason Rose,ithe house measures 2417 square feet and not 3277 square feet. Its plumbing and electrical systems are in deplorable condition; however, the structure is basically sound • • Members of City Council Zoning Case No. 329 September 4, 1986 Page Two and the roof nearly new. The property is bordered by mature shrubs and trees which are to remain as part of the proposed remodel. A below street level school yard is located across the street. The property is bordered on the west by a bridle trail! and, beyond that,:a large paved parking area for the neighbor's home. To the east, the property is bordered by a 25 foot roadway easement and beyond that a several acre corral: North of the corral is Colyear's front yard tennis court. To the rear (north) of our property is a several acre paddock with barn. We bought the property to restore and remodel the residence doing, in the process, as little violence to the existing structure as possible. To the rear of the site, we planned to construct a barn and paddocks to accommodate our several horses, establish a large vegetable garden and orchard, provide a containment area for our dogs and poultry and create a play area for our six year old son safely removed from the busy thoroughfare that is Crest Road and the likewise heavily used Colyear roadway which parallels the east boundary of the property. To anyone intent on improving the property, both the predicament its configuration posed and the solution to that predicament is clear. Expansion of the house has to be to the west and east with as much of the development forward into the spacious front yard where over two-thirds of the unused property is situated. The limited available space at the back of the property has to be preserved at all costs since any further development rearward jeopardized construction of adequate horse., facilities, garden area, and the like. We had every reason to believe that these improvements would be unhesitatingly allowed. We had been told that the property was a blight in the City and that the City would work with us in the remedial steps we planned to take. We were shown plans that had been approved in -October 1981 for Rose. 'Parenthetically, these plans depicted 20 foot and not 35 foot side yard setback standards. Patterning our own scaled down version of what Rose had successfully proposed, we submitted our variance requests to the Planning Commission confident it would routinely reaffirm its earlier approval. Like Rose, we asked for approval to construct a master bedroom on the west end of the house which would go no further than 20 feet from the property line. To the east, we proposed adding a.garage that would extend no further into the side yard than did the existing residence, i.e.,'16 feet from the property line. The approved Rose proposal, to the contrary, involved building a garage and paved parking and paved recreational area within 12 feet of the • • Members of City Council Zoning Case No. 329 September 4, 1986 Page Three property line and even violated the 50 foot front yard setback restrictions. Our proposal, on the other hand, remained 120 feet back from Crest Road. We asked for less than five foot encroachments into the front yard for portions of the existing main residence -- the object being to increase some of the room size and renew the front of the house. Permission to expand the living room and dining room rearward into an area already developed as patio space was also sought. We did, however, eliminate the cathedral ceilings that Rose's proposal contained due to our understanding that the City was displeased with that part of Rose's plan. Lastly, we asked for a ten foot variance to - build a four stall barn, hay storage and tack room facility. Our plan carefully preserved the feeling of open space. `It did not substantially intrude into the setbacks imposed on RAS-1 size lots but did involve some encroachment if - the more onerous RAS-2 setbacks were rigidly applied. The same Planning Commission that approved the Rose proposal denied each and every variance we requested. Demolishing the house or substantial portions of it was suggested by one member "since it is in bad shape anyway." Another Commissioner theorized that we could attach the garage 22 feet further to the west and construct the master bedroom at the back of the house. Aside from the fact that our architect tells us such a design would constitute an architectural monstrosity,' it 'would also violate the County building codes by eliminating half the windows in the house. It would require cutting the foundation in half to allow for running plumbing lines to the front yard septic tank, involve demolition of the near new roof, and would entail extensive grading and excavation by building on the one area of the lot that is significantly sloped. It would also result in having the barn positioned within a few feet of the master bedroom. Although my wife and I are diehard horse people, there is absolutely no way we intend to sleep with our equines. It would also involve either eliminating a much needed garage or building it within inches of the front door. Relocation of the existing driveway would then become an absolute necessity. In short, the suggestions of the Commissioners ignore the legitimate development problems any owner faces with this property. PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT: The Planning Commission has, in denying our variance requests, effectively evicted us from our property. When you combine the long narrow configuration of the property and the placement of the house at its near narrowest point with RAS-2 • • Members of City Council Zoning Case No. 329 September 4, 1986 Page Four restrictions imposed on this RAS-1 size lot, and allow no variances of the types requested, we have a very real hardship and are precluded from the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right. In October of 1981, the Planning Commission clearly found exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in connection with the application for variance by Rose. Other homeowners in the City are granted variances in similar hardship situations. Fairness demands we be accorded similar treatment. GRANTING VARIANCE NOT MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL: Neither the public welfare nor the property nor improvements in the vicinity will be adversely affected by the - proposed additions.' To the contrary, the proposal would eliminate existing health and safety hazards. The garage would provide a much needed noise buffer from the Colyear roadway. A vintage, if neglected, Rolling Hills residence would have been restored and remodeled in a way which retains its rural look.'' The sense of open space in all directions would be preserved.) No/ one's view would be impaired.. No one's access to property or to bridle trails or to easements would be compromised in the slightest degree. As developed, the majority of the residence would remain anywhere from 150-200 feet from Crest. The house would be well under 6000 square feet in size,. A professional quality horse facility would be constructed where none now exists. The property would be beautifully landscaped, all to the benefit of neighboring residents and the community in general. There is no legitimate basis for denying the requested variances and very good reasons, based on the hardship we face, to have our sensible solution approved. Very truly yours, Roger and Christa Hawkins cc: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager REH\9i •City Council Agenda 8/25/86 TO: FROM: Terrence L. belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 329 (Hawkins) # 4 a, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the letter of appeal from Mr. & Mrs. Roger Hawkins, dated August 20, 1986, and set the matter of Zoning Case No. 329 for Public Hearing on Monday, September 8, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. BACKGROUND: Mr. & Mrs. Roger Hawkins of 37 Crest Road West, City of Rolling Hills, made application for a Variance from the side yard and front yard requirements of the City's Municipal Code. The applicant's property is located in the RAS-2 zone. The property does not meet the minimum net lot area requirements of the zoning ordinance. The reason for this lack of conformity is a subdivision of land which occurred in 1970, which created the subject parcel. The applicant asked for relief from the requirements of the RAS-2 zone side yard requirement; and, instead asked that the RAS-1 zone side yard requirements be utilized. Further, the applicant requested an encroachment into the established front yard. The new established front yard would still be in excess of 120 feet from crest Road West, after said encroachment. The Planning Commission held public hearings on July 15, 1986, and August 19, 1986, regarding the Variance application. The Planning Commission took a field trip to the site on August 9, 1986. At the close of the public hearing on August 19, 1986, the Planning Commission took action to recommend the denial of the Variance application of Mr. & Mrs. Roger Hawkins (Zoning Case No. 329). On August 21, 1986, the City Council received a letter of appeal to the Planning Commissions action, from Mr. & Mrs. Roger Hawkins. The letter of appeal asks that the City Council review the Planning Commission's decision. The letter also cites several issues that the applicant believes the City Council should consider when reviewing Zoning Case No. 329. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, it is recommended that the City Council set this matter for public hearing on September 8, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.