0557M
RESOLUTION NO. _557
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE AND DENYING A HEIGHT VARIANCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 334.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Victor
and Thoma Martinov for a front yard setback variance and a height
variance to allow a two-story structure for property located
at 33 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 17 -CF), Rolling Hills, California.
The application seeks a variance to allow the extension by one
foot of an existing nonconforming structure into the front yard
setback and to permit construction of habitable living space
below habitable space, creating a two-story structure.
Section 2. On September 16 and October 21, 1986,
the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the application. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiv-
ing testimony, the Commission approved the variance.
Section 3. 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 November 10, 1986 and ordered a de novo public hearing.
Section 4. The City Council opened the public hearing
on November 24, 1986 and continued it to December 8, 1986. A
duly noticed field trip was conducted on December 6, 1986,
to which the applicant and all members of the public were invited.
The Council has considered the evidence, both written and oral,
presented to it in connection with this application.
Section 5. In accordance with Section 17.32.030
of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
1. The subject property is unique in that it is an
unusually long and narrow lot, with an existing residential
structure which is positioned within the front yard setback
and within both side yards. The house cannot be added to
in any direction without a variance due to its shape and
the rear grade.
1,
25
2. Approval of the variance for an additional front
yard encroachment does not give to the applicants a special
privilege because it merely allows them to remodel and add
to a house on a lot subject to unusual constraints such
as extremely narrow shape, rear yard slope and the presence
of existing structures.
3. The variance is necessary to the applicants' ability
to enjoy their property to the same extent as other similar
properties in the same zone which also encroach into the
front yard. It will permit applicant to construct in accor-
dance with a design plan that makes sensible use of existing
unique conditions.
4. The front yard setback variance will not be detri-
mental to the public health, safety and welfare in that
CO the proposed construction will not have a detrimental effect
on neighboring properties.
N 5. The property does not possess any particular unique
W characteristic to justify the request for a height variance
m to allow a two-story structure. Although the property does
Q slope at the rear, there is ample existing room to support
a substantial structure on a single -level. And, although
topographical features make a multi-level structure possible,
this does not constitute a condition that deprives the pro-
perty owners of the reasonable use or enjoyment of their
property in the absence of the variance.
6. Section 17.16.050 expressly prohibits two-level
structures. Many other properties in the City are charac-
terized by slopes that would facilitate construction of
multi-level homes, yet the properties can accommodate sizeable
homes on a single level, thereby complying with zoning ordi-
nance requirements. Grant of this request would constitute
a grant of special privilege in that the applicant would
be authorized to construct a multi-level home when other
owners of property may not and where such construction is
not necessary to make reasonable use of the property.
7. Grant of the variance would provide the applicants
with a privilege not accorded to other property owners with
exactly the same physical circumstances.
26
Section 6. In accordance with the foregoing findings,
the front yard setback variance sought in Zoning Case No. 334
is hereby approved and the request for the height variance is
hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12cn stay of January,
1987.
Mayor
AT TES
City Clerk
a
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 557 was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of January, 1987,
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock,
Mayor Pernell
NOES: Councilmember Swanson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk
1�