Loading...
none, New pool & deck, steps, trelli, Staff Reports• Cry 0/!2 P?,.9 JUL AGENDA ITEM 4C MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1994 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 519 RESOLUTION NO. 94-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A POOL HOUSE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 519. Mr. and Mrs. Brian Pratt, 33 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 17-CF) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the attached resolution on November 5, 1994. 2. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 210 square foot addition to a 598 square foot pool house. 3. The existing house, attached garage, and the pool were built in 1956. The pool house was constructed in 1958. [On August 13, 1979, Ordinance No. 170 was adopted requiring an approved Conditional Use Permit for construction of a cabana (pool house)]. A 240 square foot stable was constructed in 1961 and a 7 foot diameter spa was added in 1980. In 1987, residential additions were made. The residence is 3,765 square feet, the garage is 629 square feet, and the pool is 462 square feet. 4. Grading for the project site will not be required. 5. Disturbed area of the lot will be 6.2 %. 6. The pool and pool house pad is 3,809 square feet and the coverage of structures on that pad is 21%. The residential pad is 5,860 square feet and the coverage on that pad is 75%. The stable pad is 2,254 square feet and the coverage on that pad is 10.6%. Total building structures will be 11,923 square feet and coverage on the three pads will be 45.6%. ®Pr r.ted on Pnr•ir'n<! P:,;>.., ZONING CASE NO. 519 • • PAGE 2 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 5,433 square feet or 6.2 % (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,777 square feet or 12.97% (35% permitted). • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 94-25. • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A POOL HOUSE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 519. 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. Brian Pratt with respect to real property located at 33 Chuckwagon Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 17-CF) requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct an addition to a pool house. Section 2. The existing house, attached garage, and the pool were built in 1956. The pool house was constructed in 1958 prior to the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for pool houses. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on September 20, 1994 and October 18, 1994, and at a field trip visit on October 6, 1994. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e) and is therefore categorically exempt from , environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(2) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a Pool House (Cabana) or detached recreation room with a Conditional Use Permit under certain conditions. The applicant is requesting to construct a 222 square foot addition to an existing 577 square foot pool house, for a total of 799 square feet. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the pool house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the pool house would be located in an area on the property. where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of an addition to the pool house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the existing structure used as a pool house is at a RESOLUTION NO 94-25 • . PAGE 2 i lower level than the residential building pad and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the pool house will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the pool house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.016 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 799 square foot size of the pool house is less than the 800 square foot maximum permitted for similar accessory buildings and the pool house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because the addition to the pool house will be on the existing pool deck. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an addition to an existing pool house in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto in Zoning Case No. 519 subject to the conditions contained in Section 7. Section 7. The Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an addition to a pool house approved in Section 6 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A). B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. RESOLUTION NO. 94- PAGE 3 D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. No sleeping quarters or kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the pool house or detached recreation room. F. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the pool house. G. The basement door of the residence shall be solid (without windows), shall be installed within three months of the approval of this Resolution, and shall be subject to City staff approval. H. Renting of the pool house is prohibited. I. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. J. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. K. The pool house shall not exceed 799 square feet. The pool house building pad coverage shall not exceed 21%. L. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. M. Any modifications to the property which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of an application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission. N. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO, 94-25 PAGE 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 5TH DAY OF I OVEI BER, 1994. ALLA ' ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN ERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No.94-25 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A POOL HOUSE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 519. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices f ..ri MARIL KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK J • .• s3•.-r•.rt.•v./I:♦^.•N4+i^G• •r AL, !�Z i•.x -x.wl:L-11.1 ". Vl !•�WY•{'J.Va")•/%WO i• `ANS 7:J•:14"10!ia:•.7'Iorti. tJi/.J..iJ :.l... � ). J t".'. C1iy o/ /2O/& S INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESF BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 December 8, 1986 TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager' A7 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 334 (Martinov) The Martinov Variance, which requests an exception to the height limitation provision in the Zoning Ordinance, will be considered this evening. In order to provide some guidance to the City Council regarding the Variance, I have included a memorandum that was developed by Bill Kinley several years ago which suggests guidelines for the granting of a Variance. In reading through the guidelines for granting a Variance, if one were to read the guidelines from the opposite point of view, then each of the guidelines can then be used for not granting a Variance. As an example, the guideline indicates that the granting of a Variance should not be contrary to the public health, safety, interest and welfare of the community at large, or be contrary to the intent or spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, and should have no adverse effect on the Master Plan of the City. Arguably, a Variance should not be granted if in fact it is contrary to the public health, safety, interest and welfare of the community at large, or be contrary to the intent or spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and should have no adverse effect on the Master Plan of the City. J 1 - - .GUIDELINES FOR GRANTING VARIANCES 2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 3 4 VARIANCES: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 18 3.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 •' 1. The gra.nting ofa variance .should not be contrary to the public health, safety,.interest and'welfare.of the community'at large, or be contrary to the intent or spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and should have no adverse effect on the master plan of the City. • . •s L 2. Neighborhood interests are important factors to weigh when considering the propriety of a,lot variance, i.e., largeneighborhood • protests could make the granting of 0.-variance unlikely. Conversely, ,..5.. an absence of protests by• neighbors.should make the granting of a variance likely. 3. As a matier of law, objecting neighbors cannot control the decision, but their objections: are not to be disregarded. 1 ,.rf i 4. The granting of a variance should not make neighboring property less desirable for existing uses or uses to which the property might be subjected in the future. ,.! t;$ 5. _Some evidence that the variance will depreciate neighboring . property may be a sufficient basis for denial, however the absence of 'depreciating effect on neighboring property alone will not make a variance proper. . o W o� a< Z_ actt' OW t.3 x�a 4 tj U • Ziz o po Q •w z I0 1 6. The variance should preserve the integrity and character of the 2 district and the general welfare of the neighborhood. 3 4 7. If a variance is granted, it should only be granted for the purpose 5 of bringing disadvantaged property up to the level of reasonable use 6 enjoyed by other neighboring property. No more is required or proper. 7 8 8. Conditions can be imposed on the grant of a variance in order to. 9 bring the disadvantaged property up to, but no greater than, parity with 10 neighboring property. Because a variance is designed for the individual 11 12 115 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '23 24 25 26 27 case, conditions are an integral part of the granting of it. 9. Conditions imposed when a variance is granted are imposed on'the • property, not on the person. 10. Generally speaking, any type of condition can .be attached to a variance so long as it has for its purpose the carrying out of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. • The effect of a .variance should generally be considered in terms of, effect on the neighboring property, not to the neighbors as persons, how . ever there may be no difference ultimately as the primary purpose of a zoning ordinance is to provide for personal welfare and an adverse effect on persons is usually translated into an adverse effect on property values, however it would be an abuse of discretion to deny a variance because proposed use would adversely affect a normally sensitive person. 28 12. Even if a variance would have no harmful effect on the public or• 1 the neighbors, it would not be proper unless the property were unique in 2 some way so that the zoning restrictions caused unusual hardship. Unless 3 the property is different from neighboring property, a variance is not proper. 5 6 7 • 13. Property that is relatively useless when compared to neighboring property, suffers a hardship, and if other standards are met is entitled to 8 . a variance. 9 10 11 <o 3.2 (A) Self-induced hardships, i. e. , those brought on maw 13 by the actions of the owner. of the property after he his acquired it, are not z izci wC0 14. The standard of hardships with regard to applications for variance relates to property, not to the person who owns It: elkJ. grounds _ grounds for the granting of a variance; • a3Wuo15 zsnxa O pVa G 4611 16 r17 a 18 1.9 20 21 22 *23 24 (B) Mere financial loss caused by proper zoning is not a hardship entitling a variance, however a total or near total loss of value caused by zoning that bears particularly harshly on specific circum- stances and, is not required by the public interest, causes unnecessary hardships and is entitled; . (C) Inability to obtain financing to develop property for a permitted use, maybe some evidence of hardship; (D) Zoning that precludes the most economical use o property does not in itself impose unnecessary hardship. . 25 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 26 (A) The essential differences between conditional use permits and 27 variances, and an amendment, are summarized as follows: 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: A. The essential differences between a conditional use permit and a variance and an amendment are summarized as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is administrative permission for uses not allowed as a matter of right in a zoning district. 8 Uses are permitted in compliance with more or less the standards container; in the ordinance. These conditional permitted uses are listed in the City's 9 10 11 12 • o i m<n13 z Kzir+ 0 is. el 361116 �a Z n=d O mVw d '6 r16 • 0 Ng 17 a 18 19 20 21 22 • 23 24 25 26 27 28 ordinance. 2. A variance is administrative relief from a zoning• provision that causes unnecessary hardship. (Note: Does not apply to conditional use permits) 3. An amendment to the -Zoning Ordinance is a legislative change in the zoning of the area. B. A conditional use permit allows the inclusion in the zoning pattern of uses essentially desirable but which because of the nature thereof, or their concomitants (noise, traffic, congestion,' effect on property values), militate against their existence in every location or in a zoning district, or in any location, without restrictions tailored to fit the special problems which the uses present. C. Conditional use permits should be limited -to those uses only for • which it is difficult to specify adequate conditions in advance. Some uses are so special that they are not made a permitted use in any zone. They are treated solely as conditional uses. Airports would be a typical example Although conditional use permits were originally used for the 'granting of 1 public or quasi -public use, over the years the conditional use permit 2 device has been expanded so that it is no longer limited to public or quasi- 3 public uses. 4 5 D. A conditional use permit runs with the land. In this respect it is , 6 like a variance. Conditions imposed on the conditional permit, however, 7 may not necessarily run with the land. 8 9 10 11 12 g w 4n 13 F. Normally, uses available by a conditional user permit are specified z .1za Rmtg214 m o b.. 0 in the Zoning Ordinance. z}Nav z.Ix=15 E. Hardship is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a conditional use permit; however the essential requirement for a variance is a showing that strict application of the zoning restrictions would cause unnecessary hardsh o mud a 6 16 G. Conditions may be imposed on the conditional use permit, though aV 17 they are not detailed in the ordinance; these would be much like the conditior s 18 imposed on variances. 19 20 H. A conditional use permit is a.. special dispensation for a use barred 21 • by the basic Zoning Ordinance. 22 '23 I. The essential differences between a conditional use permit, a varian 24 and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, are as follows: 25 26 1. A conditional use permit is administrative permis- 27 sion for uses not allowed as a matter of right in a district. The uses are 28 permitted in compliance with more or less vague standards contained in the • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ordinance. These conditionally permitted uses are listed in the City's Ordinance. 2. A variance is administrative relief from a zoning provision that causes unnecessary hardship. 3. An amendment is a legislative change in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions as are deemed necessary and desirable to protect the public health, safety or welfare, in accordance with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. City Council Agenda November 10, 1986 Item #5A TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 334 - Mr. & Mrs. Victor Martinov RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission approved an application for Variance from minimum front yard setback requirements and height limitation requirement related to habitable space on top of habitable space. The applicants are Mr. & Mrs. Victor Martinov, 33 Chuckwagon Road. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 16, and October 21, 1986, regarding a Variance application for Mr. & Mrs. Victor Martinov, which would allow for encroachment into the established front yard setback and allow for .a construction of habitable space on top of habitable space at 33 Chuckwagon Road. The Planning Commission conducted a.site investigation on October 4, 1986. The applicants property at 33 Chuckwagon Road currently has a non -conforming encroachment into the minimum front yard setback. The residence encroaches into the minimum front yard setback of 17 feet to the present time. The Variance request is for the encroachment of an additional foot, from 17 to 18 feet. The applicants also have requested a Variance from the height limitation requirements of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, the applicants ask for a variance from the prohibition of habitable living space being built on top of other habitable living space (2 story and/or 2 level construction). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received many comments in support of the variance application. Also, the applicants presented a petition signed by most of the homeowners in the Chuckwagon Road area, which express support for Mr. & Mrs. Martinov's variance application. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission found that the topographical, physical and structural constraints inherent in the property justified the granting of a variance per the applicants request. The Planning Commission voted 3 yes, and 2 no, to approve Zoning Case No. 334. FISCAL IMPACT: There is none.