291, Addition to exist garage with , Correspondence•
City el RJ/54
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Mayor
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Mayor pro tem
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
GODFREY PERNELL
Councilman
GORDANA SWANSON
Councilwoman
Mrs. Dextra Miller
13 Cinchring Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mrs.' Miller:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377•I321
July 24, 1984
Subject: Zoning Case No. 291
This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section
17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance of
Front Yard Requirements for construction of a garage in the front yard
of Lot 19-5-CH located at 13 Cinchring Road was denied by the Planning
Commission at a regular meeting on April 17, 1984, with findings that
hardship had not been stablished. A formal report of the Couuuission`s
action as required by Section 17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is con-
tained in the minutes of the proceedings before the CouuLlission.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hils reviewed the action
of the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on May 14, 1984, pur-
suant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Since no action
was taken by the Councilregarding the Planning Commission's decision,
the denial of your request has been sustained by the City Council.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincerely,
Ron Molendyk
City Manager
RM/jc
Cziy oi Roiling -Mid
Mrs. Dextra Miller
13 Cinchring Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
May 4, 1984
Re: Zoning Case No. 291
Variance of Front Yard
Requirements, Lot 19-5-CH
Dear Mrs. Miller:
This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section
17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal.Code, that a Variance of
Front Yard Requirements for construction of a garage in the front
yard of Lot 19-5-CH located at 13 Cinchring Road was denied by the
City Planning Commission at a regular meeting on April 17, 1984,
with findings that hardship had, not been established. This notice
shall serve as a copy of the decision of the Planning Commission.
A formal report of the Commission's action as required by Section
17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is contained in the minutes of the
proceedings before the Commission. A copy of the minutes pertaining
to Zoning Case No. 291 is enclosed.
The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by the
applicant, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. A
copy is enclosed for your information. The fee for an appeal, as
set forth in Resolution No. 494, is $1,000.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will be reviewing
the action of the Planning Commission on Monday, May 14, 1984 at
7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, pursuant. to Section
17.32.140 of the Municipal Code to determine whether the action of
the Planning Commission should be appealed by the Council. Should
you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
June Cunningham
Deputy City Clerk
copy: D. McHattie
Attachments (3)
GEORGE R.JOHNSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
60 ELM AVENUE
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
TELEPHONE (213) 437-2973
March 15, 1984
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Subject: Public Hearing to consider request for Front
Yard encroachment - Variance, Zoning Case No. 291
Dear Sirs:
I regret that I will be in northern California March 20 and
unable to attend the above -captioned hearing.
If I were able to attend the hearing, I would register a
protest against the request, which I consider unjustified.
The house in question already has a garage, but the resi-
dents have apparently elected to convert it into living
quarters and for some time have been content to park their
cars in the motor court in front of the original garage.
I think that the addition of an additional. garage project-
ing into the front yard setback would seriously detract
from the appearance of their property and of the entire
neighborhood.
As next door neighbors residing at 20 Cinchring Road, we
have already taken a very dim view of the guest house which
these owners built several years ago and which we regard as
a violation of the spirit, if not the then letter of the
applicable ordinance. Although denominated a guest house,
this structure has apparently been used since its construc-
tion as an entirely separate dwelling which has been occu-
pied by permanent residents, including an annoyingly noisy
shepherd dog. We would be interested to know whether the
occupants of this so-called guest house have not, in fact,
been rent paying tenants.
In any event, the so-called guest house has only detracted
from the quality of the neighborhood, and we are satisfied
that the construction of another garage would be only a
•
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Page Two March 15, 1984
further step in the same direction.
Ver ruly yours,
George J.'frson
GRJ:mm