191, Addition to existing SFR on ea, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Joseph Hummel
Lot 6-SF
ZONING CASE NO. 191
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Joseph Hummel, Lot 6-SF, Southfield Tract,
for a conditional use permit under ARTICLE III, Section 3.07, Side Yard
Requirements, Ordinance No. 33, came on for hearing on the 19th day of
April, 1977 in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant,
having submitted evidence in support of the application, the Planning
Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and Report as required
by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Joseph Hummel, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 6-SF located
at 3 Ringbit Road West in the City of Rolling Hills, and that notice
of the public hearing in connection with said application was given
as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33 of the City
of Rolling Hills, California. The Commission finds, further, that no
communication in opposition to the request was received; Mr. Allan
Tufeld, 5 Ringbit Road West viewed the plans and stated that he had
no objection to the proposed residence addition. Mrs. Ann Roberts,
7 Southfield Drive, also reviewed the plans and said she had no objec-
tion to the proposed addition, but she thought the plans did not accu-
rately reflect the true location of the house on the lot.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant subsequently provided
a current survey of the property and a revised plan dated May 16, 1977,
and requested a conditional use permit for a residence addition which
would project six feet into the side yard on the west side of the
property. The Commission finds that a conditional use permit for a
residence addition which would extend into the side yard but which would
not change the existing roofline svhould be granted in order to preserve
substantial property rights possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such conditional use permit
would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injur-
ious to property in the same vicinity and zone
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should be granted for construction of a residence addition on
the east side of the property which would encroach six feet into the
side yard as shown on amended plan dated May 16, 1977, to Mr. Joseph
Hummel, Lot 6-SF, 3 Ringbit Road West, and it is, therefore, so
ordered.
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission
etary, P annin: commission