In the fall of 2006, Castle Asset Management, developers of a proposed 3600 square foot, multi-story home at 5898 Lorae Place, submitted a request to the City’s Office of Zoning Administration for three variances to the City’s building codes for the purpose of (a) erecting five retaining walls with a total height in excess of what the City allows, (b) reducing the requirement for four off-street parking spaces to only two, and (c) extending the height of the house above the permitted 45 feet to a height of 46.5 feet.   The proposed house would be located at the end of a cul-de-sac and on an extremely steep hillside.  There are houses directly above the site on Hollyridge Drive -- all of which would be affected by any alteration in the stability of the hillside.  In addition, the lot is bisected by a ravine where water runs down from the hillside above.  And at 3600 square feet, the proposed home would be larger than almost all the other houses in the immediate neighborhood. 

A zoning hearing was held on November 13th, 2006 at which representatives of the developer presented their plans to Zoning Administrator Patricia Brown and made their case for the three variances.   Also in attendance at the hearing were neighbors from Lorae Place, a member of the Oaks zoning committee, a member of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council and a representative from Councilman LaBonge’s office – all of whom voiced their opposition to the granting of the variances.  The objections were that:  the proposed house is larger than the houses in its immediate vicinity; that on-street parking is already at a premium in the neighborhood and that the variance would put even more cars on the street; that the stability of the hillside and of adjacent homes would be compromised by the large excavation necessary for the house as planned; and that the neighbors and the neighborhood associations support the hillside ordinances and in principle oppose granting exceptions to them.

Ms. Brown reviewed the developers’ documents and found them confusingly drawn and hard to understand.  At the end of the hearing, she asked the developers to submit new, clearer plans to Zoning.  In addition, she expressed dissatisfaction with the developers’ outreach to the community and asked them to present their plans at the next meetings of HUNC and The Oaks Homeowners Association.  They promised that they would.  Mr. Brown also asked both HUNC and OHA to listen to the developers at their meetings and then to submit to her letters of support or opposition to the variance requess by December 15th, 2006. 

The developers appeared at the next HUNC meeting and made a statement regarding a possible withdrawal of the variance applications.  However, they  failed to contact the Oaks Association or to appear at the Oaks meeting.  HUNC and the Oaks both submitted letters of opposition to the granting of variances.

On February 16th, Ms. Brown reported to us that the developers have withdrawn their request for the three variances.  It’s not known whether the project is going forward with new plans. 

We all believe that every property owner has the right to build a home.  But we also believe that every property owner has the obligation to observe the building regulations and the Hillside Ordinance.  Variances exist to provide  relief in cases of extreme hardship.  It doesn’t appear that this is one of those cases.