0725RESOLUTION NO. 725
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 497.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
e Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Howroyd with respect to
real property located at 7 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 28 -SK) requesting Site Plan Review
for a stable with loft, and corral area that requires grading. During the public hearing process
another application was duly filed requesting a Variance to permit the construction of an attached
garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family residence and convert an existing
attached garage to residential living space on an upper pad separate from the lower stable pad.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the application for Site Plan Review on May 18, 1993 and June 15, 1993. The Planning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for Site Plan
Review and Variance on July 20, 1993 and August 17, 1993, and at a field trip visit on August 10,
1993. The Planning Commission approved the Site Plan Review for a stable and corral on a lower
pad pursuant to Resolution No. 93-27 and denied the Variance to permit the construction of an
attached garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family residence and convert an
existing attached garage to residential living space pursuant to Resolution No. 93-28 on September
7, 1993.
Section 3. The City Council received and filed Planning Commission Resolutions No. 93-27
and 93-28 on September 13, 1993.
Section 4. Subsequently, the applicants appealed the denial of the Variance to permit the
construction of an attached garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family residence
and convert an existing attached garage to residential living space.
Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal
of the Variance on October 25, 1993, November 22, 1993, and January 10, 1994, and at a field trip
visit on December 11, 1993.
Section 6. Evidence was heard from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and
from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal regarding the Variance to permit the construction of an attached garage in the side yard
setback to an existing single family residence and convert an existing attached garage to residential
living space.
Section 7. The City Council finds that the project is categorically exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3
exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines._
Section 8. Section 17.38.010(A) permits 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 a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A
Variance to Section 17.16.120(B)(1) is required to construct a garage addition to the residence in
the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a garage addition that will
encroach up to a maximum of fourteen (14) feet into the side yard setback. The City Council finds:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable
to the property and the intended use that apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity
and zone. The Variance is not necessary because the existing house includes a garage which has
been illegally converted to residential living space and the building pad coverage for this project
on the upper residential pad would be 84.2% which the Council finds excessive and exceeds the
building pad coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not
appropriate for the property.
B. This Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the
property in question because approximately two-thirds of the present house encroaches into the
front and side yard setbacks and additional encroachments would exacerbate the amount of
residential structure within setback areas.
C. The granting of this Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located
because the proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the pad, leaves little open
space between property lines and would result in further overdevelopment of the building pad.
This would make the proposed garage structure more visually prominent on the building pad than
appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the request
for a Variance approval for the construction of a new garage in Zoning Case No. 497.
r� i j •r• • � . i . i•r i ,� �. • . . • i•.
J
•fir j �• •'
ATTEST:
MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution No. 725 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 497.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 24, 1994 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh
and Mayor Murdock
NOES: clone
ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer
ABSTAIN: Clone
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
Resolution No. 725
-2-
DEPUTY CI'T'Y CLERK
1
L
J