365, A bedroom addition to an exist, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
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. Michael Migliaccio
Lot 16-CF
Zoning Case No. 365
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. & Mrs. Michael Migliaccio,
Lot 16-CF, Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section
17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came for
hearing on the 16th day of August 1988, the 30th day of August 1988
and the 20th day of September 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. Michael
Migliaccio, are the owners of that certain real property described as
Lot 16-CF, located at 31 Chuckwagon Road 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, there was no written comment in
opposition to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicants, have requested a
Variance from Section 17.16.070 minimum front yard setback
requirement and from Section 17.16.070 minimum side yard setback
requirements. The property is a nonconforming lot of .635 net acres
(27,661 sq. ft.) in size, which is located in the RAS - 1 zone
(43,560 sq. ft.). The lot has a nonconforming front yard set-
Page Two
back of 25'6". The property has a non -conforming lot width of
122'.0". The applicants have requested an 8'.0" gross and 4'.0" net
encroachment into the minimum front yard setback for the purpose of
constructing an addition to the main building. Also, the applicants
have requested an 8'.0" encroachment into the minimum side yard
setback, which is a non -conforming 13'.0", for the purpose of
constructing a retaining wall. The encroachment of 8'.0" (4'.0" net)
into the front yard setback would result in a non -conforming minimum
front yard setback of 21'.6". The encroachment of 8'.10" into the
side yard setback would result in a non -conforming minimum side yard
setback of 5'.0".
The applicants indicate that the proposed improvements to the
existing residence and property are 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.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a Variance should be:
Page Three
1. Granted as to the request for encroachment into the minimum
front yard setback of 8'.0" (4'.0" net) for the purpose of adding to
the main building. The Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances applicable to the property and not applicable
to other similar properties in the same zone that pre-
vent the owners from making use of the property to the
same extent enjoyed by similar properties. The appli-
cants have met their burden of identifying and the
Commission finds that there exists physical features
of the property that makes use of the property diffi-
cult or impracticable without a variance;
B. The proposed encroachment into the minimum front yard
would not constitute a major incursion into the
setback and would not create a special privilege. The
Zoning Ordinance allows for 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 with
justification, a circumstance that would not 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
variance will enable the applicants the reasonable use
and enjoyment of their property; and
C. The purpose of the front yard setback is to provide
Page Four
residential properties with a landscaped yard
unencumbered by structures in the front yard of
their homes where most visible from the street.
This property possesses a nonconforming front yard
and because of its existing physical development,
does not provide additional room within the setbacks
to expand the existing residence. Grant of the
variance would be consistent with the purpose of the
setback requirement. Grant of the variance would
provide the applicants with a privilege accorded
other property owners with exactly the same physical
circumstances, will not be detrimental to the
principles of sound planning, inconsistent with the
goals of the zoning ordinance or detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
2. Granted as to the encroachment of 8'.0" into the minimum
side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall.
The Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. The Planning Commission finds that there are
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property and 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 met their burden of identifying and
the Commission finds that there exists physical
features of the property that makes use of the
property difficult or impracticable without a
variance;
B. The proposed encroachment into the minimum side yard
would not constitute a major developmental incursion
into the setback and would not create a special
Page Five
privilege totally unjustified by the factual
circumstances. The Zoning Ordinance allows for
issuance of variances compelled 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 construct a retaining wall for
structural stability in their southerly side yard,
with justification, a circumstance that would not
give them a not privilege 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;
and
C. The purpose of the side yard setback is to provide
residential properties with usual and emergency
access to the rear yard of their homes. Although
this property possesses a nonconforming side yard
and despite its existing physical development, the
construction of a retaining wall would be considered
as enhancing access. Grant of the variance would be
consistent with the purpose of the setback
requirement with justification. Grant of the
variance would not provide the applicants with a
privilege not accorded other property owners with
exactly the same physical circumstances, will not be
detrimental to the principles of sound planning,
inconsistent with goals of the zoning ordinance and
not detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare.
The request for a variance to encroach 8'.0" into the front
yard setback for the purpose of constructing an addition to the main
building and to encroach 8'.0".into the side yard setback for the
Page Six
purpose of constructing a retaining wall should be granted subject to
the following conditions: 1) The front yard encroachment into the
minimumfront yard setback for the main building addition not extend
beyond 8'.0"; 2) The encroachment into the minimum side yard
setback for the retaining wall not extent beyond 8'.0"; 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
Architectural Committee; 5) This
under the California Environmental
ordered.
/s/ Terrence L. Belanger
Secretary, Planning Commission
Hills Community Association
project is categorically exempt
Quality Act.
It is, therefore, so
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission