245, Decrease front yard setback, i, 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. William King
Lot 121-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 245
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. William King, Lot 121-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a Variance of Front Yard Requirements for a residence
addition under Article III, Section 3.06, Ordinance No. 169 came on
for hearing on the 18th day of March, 1980 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 King,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 121-EF,
located at 92 Crest Road East 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 finds, further,
that no comment, written or verbal, was received in favor of or in
opposition to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
variance of front yard requirements for a residence addition. The
Commission finds, further, that 80% of the house is in the prescribed
front set back, which was applied after the house was
addition would not be any closer to the road than the
ture. The Commission further finds that the property
ten feet below Crest Road, and is heavily screened by
built, and the
existing struc-
is approximately
dense planting
of large trees, and there are no structures across the road; further,
improvements to the house are limited by topography of the property.
The Commission finds that the variance should be granted in order to
preserve substantial property rights in the same vicinity and zone,
and that the granting of such variances would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property in the
same vicinity and zone.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a variance shouid:be
granted under Article III, Section 3.06, Ordinance No. 169 for a
residence addition extending into the front yard of .the property, to
Mr. William King, Lot 121-EF, 92 Crest Road East, and it is, therefore,
so ordered. This approval shall expire one year from the date of grant,
if not acted on.
Secretary, Planning Commission