491, Garage addition encroaching in, Staff Reports•
City ./ leollinv
HEARING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY
APRIL 27, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
ZONING CASE NO. 491
22 Eastfield Drive (Lot 84-EF)
RAS-1, 1.3 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. NORMAN LEAN
MR. GEORGE M. SWEENEY, ARCHITECT
MARCH 6, 1993
The applicants request a Variance to permit encroachment into the
rear yard setback to construct an attached garage and a swimming
pool, and request Site Plan Review to permit substantial additions
to an existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission viewed a silhouette of the proposed
project on April 17, 1993. The Commission also viewed the
silhouette from two separate uphill neighbors' properties who
were concerned about the height of the roof line and the
projection of the southeast wing.
2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit
encroachment into the rear yard setback to construct a
garage that will encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot rear yard
setback, a pool that will encroach 30 feet into the setback,
and two small additions at the west portion of the existing
house that will encroach 14 feet and 5 feet, respectively.
The plans also show garden, service yard, and pool equipment
walls at the southern portion of the lot that encroach up to
42 feet into the 50 foot rear yard setback.
3. The applicants also request Site Plan Review to construct 3
small additions at the western portion of the existing house
and substantial additions at the eastern portion. These
additions add 1,906 square feet to the existing 2,721 square
foot residence which is a 70% increase. The applicants
propose to demolish the existing 541 square foot garage and
replace it with a new attached garage. Total structural
additions are: 1,906 square foot residential, 816 square foot
garage, and a 608 square foot swimming pool/spa. The new
residence will be 4,627 square feet. Garden, service yard and
retaining walls total approximately 181 feet.
Printed on Recycled5
ZONING CASE NO. 491
PAGE 2
4. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1950. In
1956, the attached garage was converted to residential use and
a new garage was constructed. In 1958, a pool was built at
the southeast and in 1959, a stable was constructed at the
northeast.
5. Grading for the project site will not be required.
6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,259 square feet or
14.9% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is
15,332 square feet or 30.84% (35% permitted).
7. The building pad coverage on the 13,109 square foot building
pad proposed is 48.7%. (Existing building pad coverage is
30.5%),
8. Access to the residence from Eastfield Drive will remain the
same.
9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed
plans and take public testimony.
•
•
HEARING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
City el leollinv
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,
MARCH 16, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
ZONING CASE NO. 491
22 Eastfield Drive (Lot 84-EF)
RAS-1, 1.3 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. NORMAN LEAN
MR. GEORGE M. SWEENEY, ARCHITECT
MARCH 6, 1993
The applicants request a Variance to permit encroachment into the
rear yard setback to construct an attached garage and a swimming
pool, and request Site Plan Review to permit substantial additions
to an existing single family residence.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the applicants' request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff
would identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit
encroachment into the rear yard setback to construct a
garage that will encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot rear yard
setback, a pool that will encroach 30 feet into the setback,
and two small additions at the west portion of the existing
house that will encroach 14 feet and 5 feet, respectively.
The plans also show garden, service yard, and pool equipment
walls at the southern portion of the lot that encroach up to
42 feet into the 50 foot rear yard setback.
2. The applicants also request Site Plan Review to construct 3
small additions at the western portion of the existing house
and substantial additions at the eastern portion. The smaller
additions at the western portion of the house are: A 90 square
foot master bedroom addition at the northwest, a 70 square
foot bathroom addition at the southwest, and a 20 square foot
bedroom addition at the southwest. The larger additions
include: A family room, kitchen, maid's quarters, and laundry
totaling 1,726 square feet of residential space and a new 816
square foot garage. The applicants propose to demolish the
existing 541 square foot garage. Total structural additions
are: 1,906 square foot residential, 816 square foot garage,
and a 608 square foot swimming pool/spa. The new residence
will be 4,627 square feet. Garden, service yard and retaining
walls total approximately 181 feet.
Printed on Recycl P er.
ZONING CASE NO. 491
PAGE 2
3. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1950. In
1956, the attached garage was converted to residential use and
a new garage was constructed. In 1958, a pool was built at
the southeast and in 1959, a stable was constructed at the
northeast.
4. Grading for the project site will not be required.
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,259 square feet or
14.9% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is
15,332 square feet or 30.84% (35% permitted).
6. The building pad coverage proposed is 48.7%.
7. Access to the residence from Eastfield Drive will remain the
same.
8. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed
plans and take public testimony.
•,
GEORGE MICHAEL SWEENEY & ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interior Design
March 11, 1993
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
•
pgagnj
MAR 12 1993
MY OF ROLLING HILLS
RE: Residence Addition for Mr.. and Mrs. Norman Lean, 22 Eastfield Drive
Members of the Planning Commission:
A variance is requested for the subject property because the existing residence is
a nonconforming structure which intrudes well into the current rear yard setback.
Because of the location and layout of the existing structure, which is substandard
for the community, it cannot be adequately improved without the granting of a setback
variance.
For the same reason, an accompanying variance is rewested with respect to the
existing nondonforming building pad because it is located well within the current
rear -yard setback. Such location, by City pad determination criteria, disqualifies
43% of the pre-existing building pad from consideration in pad coverage calculations.
Moreover, not only can existing pad areas within setback not be counted as "buildable
area"; but to make matters worse the entire area of all structures regardless of
location must be divided by the area of the pad exclusive of setbacks. To require
that areas of structures within the rear -yard setback be counted as coverage of pad
areas not within the setback does not reflect actual conditions and is, to say the
least, punishing. By these calculations coverage of the upper pad (the house pad)
has been increased from 27.95% to 48.66%. Coverage of the lower pad (the stables
pad) increases from 11.85% to 66.68%.
If we were starting with a vacant lot, a single building pad accommodating all
existing and proposed structures and falling within City coverage parameters
could be achieved. As things currently stand, however, the only way to comply
with the letter of the law is to demolish the existing structures and to regrade
the entire site. This notconly makes the cost of improvement unaffordable to the
Leans; but, since the open space relative to net lot area would be the same as that
which we are proposing, serves nor:purpose to the community. To the contrary, I
think that the disruption due to grading and the relocation of the house closer to
the street, would be detrimental to the public good.
But:Efor the location of the existing structure a setback variance would not be
required. But for the location of the existing pad special consideration regarding
pad definition and coverage would not be a part of our application
3 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes, Estates, CA 90274 213 373-48854
GEORGE MICHAEL SWEENEY & ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interior Design
March 11, 1993
Planning Commission
Page 2
We respectfully request that you consider the spirit rather than the letter
of the law and make allowances for the location of pre-existing building
pads for the subject property when considering pad coverages.
Sincerely,
George eeney'
GMS:ka
3 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes, Estates, CA 90274 213 373-48854