Loading...
0949RESOLUTION NO. 949 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31 -SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). 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 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31 -SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the completion and retention within the setback of an unauthorized partially constructed block wall on the property. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall in the north side yard setback was under construction on the subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that a 5 -foot high, 15 feet long, block wall was under construction within the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and demolish the wall or apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the 5 -foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct a spa, which would also encroach into the side yard setback. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the Variance request for the encroachment of the spa, but continued the request for the wall. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. At the August 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the request to retain the unauthorized 5 -foot high block wall. The Commission found that the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion of the sloped area immediately behind the wall or provide privacy. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2003-16 denying the request on September 16, 2003. Section 6. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22, 2003. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. Section 7. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal on November 10, 2003 and visited the property on November 12, 2003. Following the field trip the applicant indicated to staff in writing that he might pursue further studies of slope stability and work with staff on alternative plan that would not require a discretionary permit. However, the applicant did not withdraw the request for an appeal and requested several continuances of this case, the last being to the February 23, 2004 City Council meeting, at which time the public hearing was reconvened and concluded. Evidence was presented from all persons interested in the appeal, and fully considered by the City Council. The applicant's representatives were in attendance at all of the referenced hearings. Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.120 requires a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS -1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5 -foot high, circular, approximately 15 -feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: A. The City Council finds that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property that deny the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. The block wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There Resolution No. 949 are other structures on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. The property has no unusual features or characteristics (and the applicant has pointed to none) that justify deviation from a rule generally applicable to all properties, a rule designed to maintain a buffer area between properties that is free of structures. B. The 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. The applicant cited the loss of privacy from removal of vegetation as a justification for the Variance, but the Variance will not offerthe property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property and does not obstruct views from the adjoining property. The applicant also cited the loss of vegetation as a ground for the Variance, arguing that resulting erosion would be abated by the proposed wall. However, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion -- there are other less intrusive and lawful means permitted by the Municipal Code available to the applicant to prevent potential erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, because it would set a precedent for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. The subject property is not atypical in any respect and cannot be distinguished from other similar properties in the City that adhere to the setback rules. The Variance is not required for the applicant to make beneficial use of the property (the property is developed with a single family home and has been occupied and used without the wall for 44 years) and the request would constitute a special privilege to the extent that so much development would be permitted in the side yard and setback areas intended to be free and clear of buildings, serving as a buffer from streets and neighboring properties. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Section 10. The applicant's un -permitted construction of the block wall constitutes a Code violation. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the City will forego code enforcement for a period of six months from the adoption date of this Resolution in order to accord the applicant a reasonable time within which to remove the wall, work with staff on alternate design and take whatever steps are necessary to control soil erosion consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DA OF MARCH 2004. FRANK HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: �- k w,► -J MARILYN kERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1 Resolution No. 949 2 7 L 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. .949 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31 -SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 8, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and Mayor Hill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 949 3