157, Construct a pool between resid, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. William R. Peters
Lot 170-A-2-MS
ZONING CASE NO. 157
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. William Peters, Lot 170-A-2-MS, Miscellaneous
Tract, for a conditional use permit under ARTICLE III,. Section.3.D6,
Front Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 for construction of a swimming
pool in the front yard came on for hearing on the 20th day of July, 1976
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. William Peters, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 170-A-2-MS,
located at 9 Johns Canyon Road 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, written or verbal, was received in opposition to the
request, and that letters from Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Shultz, 10 Johns
Canyon Road, and Mr. and Mrs. Donald Williams, 9 Johns Canyon Road,
indicating that they approve the application, have been entered into
the file.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant requests the conditional
use permit for construction of a swimming pool in the front yard to
take advantage of the southwest exposure, which will provide maximum
utilization of the pool, since it is doubtful that a good energy source
will be available in the future to heat the pool, and alternate locations
east or north of the house would put the pool in the shade of the house
•
in the afternoon hours, when the pool should have maximum utilization.
Further, the applicant stated that the location of the proposed pool
is 85' from the road easement, and there will not be a slide to obstruct
the view from the road. The Commission finds that a conditional use
permit should be granted in order to preserve 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 injurious to other property in the same vicinity
and zone. As a condition of approval, the Commission requires that no
construction in the pool or deck area exceed four feet in height.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use permit
subject to the conditions imposed should be granted under ARTICLE III,
Section 3.06, Front Yard Requirements of Ordinance No. 33 to Mr. William
Paters, Lot 170-A-2-MS, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission
etary,'"P anning •Q u fission