49, Addition to SFR extending into, 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
DR., Co R. HOUSKE
Lot 4B-Crest Hills (RS 57, 35-36)
BONING CASE NO. 49
FINDINGS AND FORMAL REPORT
The application of Dr, C. R. Houske, Lot 4B, Crest Hills
Tract, for side yard variances and for a front yard variance came on
for hearing on the 24th day of November., 1964 at the hour of 8:00 P.M.
at the City Hall of the City of Rolling Hills, California, and at
the hour of 8:00 A.M. at an adjourned meeting of the Planning
Commission on the 28th day of November, 1964.on the subject property
at 3 Spur Lane, Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant having
submitted evidence in support of his application, the Planning
Commission, being advised, .now makes its Findings and Foiuial. Report
as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
Io
The Commission finds thatthe applicant:, Dr. C. R.o Houske,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 4B,
Crest Hills, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and
that notice of the public hearing in c.onnection with saidapplication
was given as required by Sections 8,06 and. 8.07 of Ordinance No, 33,
of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.I
The Commission further finds thatno person appeared at
said publichearing in opposition to the application for a variance
and that no evidence was received by the Commission in opposition
thereto.
• • • •
The Commission further finds t.hat the proposed residence
addition, as shown on the plot plan marked E>,'hi.bi.t. '.T. on fi.ie in
these proceedings, will extend on the west.. 8 feet into t:he side yard of
said lot, and that the proposed residence. addition on the cast will
extend an existing nonconforming use as defined in Section 5.05
of Ordinance No. 33, and that t•.hc: location of a proposed stable in
the front yard is necessary because of the terrain of the property,
and'further finds that. by reason of twenty-five (25) foot easements
on said Lot 4B which .are wider than those on. lots of comparable size
and front:age in t:he, same area, the. variance. should be granted to the
applicant in order to preserve substantial property rights possessed
by other property in the same vicinity' and zone, and that the granting.
of such variances 'will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which applicant's proper t:y is located.,
1V .
From t:he foregoing it is concluded that variances should
be granted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills
to Dr. Co R. Houske of Lot 4B, Crest fiil.l.s, in accordance with the
Plot Plan marked Exhibit 1 on file in t:hest. proceedings, and it is,
therefore, so ordered.
Dated November 30, 1964
Margaret Shafer, Secretary� 1�=v
Planning Commission
Robert M.
Gray Chairman
Planning Commission