234, An addition of a bedroom to ex, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsil •
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. Harold Heideman
Lot 255-UR
ZONING CASE NO. 234
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Harold Heideman, Lot 255-UR, Upper
Middleridge Tract, for a variance of side yard requirements under
ARTICLE III, Section 3.07, and extension of a non -conforming building
under ARTICLE V, Section 5.06, Ordinance No. 33 for a residence addi-
tion, came on for hearing on the 21st day of August, 1979 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 Ordi-
nances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Harold Heideman,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 255-UR,
located at 6 Middleridge Lane South 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 comment, written or verbal, was received in opposition to the
request, and that Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Schmoller, 4 Middleridge Lane South
and Mr. Ron Maciej, 3 Middleridge Lane South, came to the office to see
the plans, and said they had no objection to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
variance for construction of a residence addition for a maid's room
which would project into the side yard, and would be a continuation
of the existing residence line, which is not in conformance with the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. The Commission finds that the
topography of the property limits location of an addition in a legal
location, the adjacent property is vacant, and if a house is built on
• •
the adjoining lot in the future, it can be placed in a location away
from the existing residence. The Commission finds that the variances
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 injur-
ious to property in the same vicinity and zone.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that variances should be
granted under ARTICLE III, Section 3.07 and ARTICLE V, Section 5.06
of Ordinance No. 33 for construction of a residence addition subject
to the condition that a minimum distance of 30' 6" be maintained be-
tween the construction and the southerly property line, and it is,
therefore, so ordered This approval shall expire one year from the
date of grant if not acted on.
/s/ Joanne Murdock
Chairman, Planning Commission
L., 61.
iYecretary, Planning Comm"'sion