057674
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.
"75'
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
00 setback requirement in the RAS -2 zone is fifty (50) feet;
�- the property presently conforms to this requirement;
2. Applicants
W pp propose to expand the size of their
house, and to do so propose to build a new 2,120 square
m 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 A162.NJ 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
June , 1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
880629 sas A142.MJ 0
00
41
W
m
Q
I�
The foregoing Resolution No. 576 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE _CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 353
was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the 27th day of June by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburah. Swanson
Mayor Murdock
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Pernell