353, Convert existing garage into a, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 576
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 353
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. Scott Probst with respect to real property located at No. 33
Crest Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 70A-1-MS) requesting a
variance to permit construction of a garage, porte-cochere and a
retaining wall within the required front yard setback of said
property.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on
December 15, 1987. After considering the evidence, both written
and oral, the Commission denied the application. On February 8,
1988, the applicants appealed the decision to the City Council.
A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for March 14, 1988; at the
date and time set for the hearing, applicants advised the Council
that they had revised the proposed site plan and requested that
the revised plan be considered by the Council. In view of the
fact that the Commission had not evaluated the revised plan, the
Council decided to remand the matter back to the Planning
Commission rather than require the applicant to reapply with a
new application. The Council decided it would not be appropriate
to review modified plans not previously considered by the
Commission.
Section 3. On April 19, 1988, the Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised
application. After considering the evidence, the Commission
approved the application.
Section 4. Pursuant to its authority under Section
17.32.140(C) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the City
Council took jurisdiction of the variance application within the
appeal period on May 9, 1988 and ordered a de novo public
hearing.
Section 5. The City Council opened a duly noticed
public hearing on May 23, 1988 and continued it to a duly.
noticed field trip on June 7, 1988 to which the applicant and all
members of the public were invited. The Council resumed the
public hearing on June 13, 1988. The applicant, Mr. Probst,
appeared and spoke in support of the application. The Council has
considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented to it
in connection with this application.
•
Section 6. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
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
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties.
Pursuant to these sections, the City Council finds that:
1. Applicants' property is located in the RAS-2
zone. It contains 2.02 gross and 1.50 net acres and is
presently developed with a 5,200 square foot residence, a
paddle tennis court and a swimming pool. The front yard
setback requirement in the RAS-2 zone is fifty (50) feet;
the property presently conforms to this requirement;
2. Applicants propose to expand the size of their
house, and to do so propose to build a new 2,120 square
foot garage which will extend twenty-five (25) feet into the
required front yard, a porte-cochere which will extend
eleven (11) feet into the required front yard and the
construction of a new circular driveway with a retaining
wall which will extend forty-nine (49) feet into the
required front yard;
3. The City Council finds that there are no excep-
tional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
property and not applicable to other similar properties 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 not met their burden of identifying and
the Council finds that there exists no physical feature of
the property that makes use of the property difficult or
impracticable without a variance. Indeed, the property
presently contains a large residence with attached garage, a
paddle tennis court and a swimming pool, thereby giving it
full residential use. Moreover, the residence can be
expanded without encroaching into the existing setback;
4. 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
issuance of variances compelled by unusual physical
characteristics of property so as to give a property owner
the same rights as possessed by neighboring properties; in
this case the variance would allow 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 relief 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
-2-
880629 sas A142.MJ 0
will deprive applicants of reasonable use or enjoyment of
their property; and
5. The purpose of the front yard setback is to
provide residential properties with a landscaped yard
unencumbered by structures in the front of their homes
where most visible from the street. This property fronts
on Crest Road, a major and most travelled thoroughfare of
the City. This property possesses a conforming front yard
and despite its existing physical development, has addi-
tional room within the setbacks to expand the existing
residence. Grant of the variance would be inconsistent with
the very purpose 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, incon-
sistent with the goals of the zoning ordinance and
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 7. Based on the foregoing findings, the front
yard setback variance requested in Zoning Case No. 353 is hereby
denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of
.Tune , 1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
880629 sas A142.MJ 0
(;;VIti/ ,11/tadiel4/
#ayor
4
• . •
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
In the Matter of the Application )
)
of )
)
Mr. & Mrs. Scott Probst )
)
Lot 70A-1-MS )
)
Zoning Case No. 353
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. & Mrs. Scott Probst, Lot 70A-1-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 19th
day of April 1988, in the Council Chambers of the Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. The
Planning Commission,.after being properly-advised,nokmakes 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. Scott
Probst; are -the owners of that certain real property described as Lot
70A-1-MS, located at 33 Crest Road East 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 front yard setback requirement. The
property is a non -conforming lot of 1.50 net acres (65,221 sq. ft.)
in size, which is located in the RAS - 2 zone (87,120 sq. ft.). The
lot has a conforming front yard setback of 50'.0". The applicants
have requested a 25'.0" foot encroachment into the minimum front yard
setback. The front yard setback is 50'.0" feet in the area of
•
a
•
requested encroachment. The encroachment of 25'.0" into the front
yard setback would result in a minimum front yard setback of 25'.0".
Further, the applicants have requested an encroachment of 11'.0" into
the front yard setback to provide for the construction of a
porte-cochere.
The applicants indicate that the 2,120 sq. ft. garage addition to
the existing residence is 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.
III.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a Variance should be
granted to Mr. & Mrs. Scott Probst, Lot 70A-1-MS, 33 Crest Road'East,
under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code
for a Variance from Section 17.16.060 front yard setback requirements
subject to the following conditions:
1) The front yard encroachment into the minimum front yard
setback, at the garage not extend beyond 25.0 feet; 2) the front
yard encroachment into the minimum front yard setback at the
porte-cochere not extend beyond 11.0 ft. 3) The landscaping plan be
approved by 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 lot coverage data compliance 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
/411
•411
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application )
of )
Mr. & Mrs. Scott Probst )
Lot 70A-1-MS )
)
Zoning Case No. 353
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. & Mrs. Scott Probst, Lot 70A-1-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 15th
day of December 1987, and the 19th day of January-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. Scott
Probst, are the owners of that certain real property described as Lot
70A-1-MS, located at 33 Crest Road East 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 comment, written and verbal, was
received in support of the request. Further, that there was no
comment in opposition to the request.
The Commission finds that the applicants have requested a
Variance from Section 17.16.060 front yard setback requirement. The
property is a non -conforming lot of 1.50 net acres (65,221 sq. ft.)
in size, which is located in the RAS - 2 zone (87,120 sq. ft.). The
lot has a conforming front yard setback of 50'.0". The applicants
have requested a 35'.0" foot encroachment into the minimum front yard
setback. The front yard setback is 50'.0" feet in the area of
requested encroachment. The encroachment of 35'.0" into the front
yard setback would result in a minimum front yard setback of 15'.0".
• •
The applicants indicate that the 1,400 sq. ft. garage addition to the
existing residence is 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 preservesubstantialproperty 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.
The Commission finds that the request for a variance to
encroach 35'0" into the minimum front yard setback of 50'0" is not
appropriate as said encroachment into the minimum front yard setback
is not compatible with properties in the same vicinity and zone.
Further, the Commission -finds that the applicants' site plan proposed
to relocate the existing driveway is not appropriate and has in fact
been recommended for denial by the Traffic Commission.
III.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a_Variance should not
be granted to Mr. & Mrs. Scott Probst, Lot70A-1-MS, 33 Crest Road
East, under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal
Code for a Variance from Section 17.16.060 front yard setback
requirements. It is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission
/s/ Terrence L. Belanger
Secretary, Planning Commission