354, Addition to SFR requirering en, Resolutions & Approval Conditions� .
Ack Individual
,
to
ITC 030
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On JUNE 6. 1988
the undersigned, a Notary Public in
State, personally appeared
***MERILYN ATKINSON AND
9110348
SS.
before me,
and for said County and
HERBERT;B. ATKINSON***
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person S whose nameS ARE subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged that THEY executed the
same.
Signatu?
nC I/
INVESTORS TITLE COMPANY
FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
OFFICIAL SEAL
CHERYL L. LUCERO
NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE ,N
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
My Commission Expires September 17, 1988
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
For Recorder's Use
88 910348
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
tECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MIN CALIFORNIA
1 PAST 12 P.M.JUN 8 1988 .
ry �
FEE $7
Please record this form with the -Registrar -Recorder's Office and
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized
before recordation.) '
• Acceptance Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO:
VARIANCE CASE NO. 354
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s), of the.real property described as follows:
h�iGGS 77¢4-c '. "4 /3< 7s'6 7, P4c6 0 0 Z. ,47.4 c.e� 013
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
Conditional Use PermitCase No.
Variance .Case No. 3 54 •
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty. of 'perjury that the
foregoing is true'and correct: -
(Where the owner :and applicant_ are not 'the. same, both must sign..)
Type or print
Applicant Name -;A
Address
City ; State ov
Signature���,�
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
r
2
0 A �a : •c30 -'
-
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. & Mrs. Herbert Atkinson
Lot 0-EF
Zoning Case No. 354
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Atkinson, Lot 0-EF,
Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section 17.32.010 of the
City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came for hearing on the 19th
day of January 1988, and the 16th day of February 1988 in the Council
Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, California. The Planning Commission, after being
properly advised, now makes its Findings and Report as required by
the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Herbert
Atkinson, are the owners of that certain real property described as
Lot O-EF, located at 0 Eastfield Drive in the City of Rolling Hills,
and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said
application was given as required by Section 17.32.080 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California. The
Commission finds, further, that no comment, written or verbal, was
received in opposition to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicants have requested a
Variance from Section 17.16.060 front yard setback requirement. The
property is a non -conforming lot of .68 net acres (29,620 sq. ft.) in
size, which is located in the RAS - 1 Zone (43,560 sq. ft.). The lot
has a front yard setback of 50'.0". The applicants have requested a
9'.0" foot encroachment into the minimum front yard setback. The
front yard setback is 50'.0" feet in the area of requested
encroachment. The encroachment of 9'.0" into the front yard setback
would result in a minimum front yard setback of 41'.0". The
applicants indicate that the 1,173 sq. ft. addition to the existing
residence is most logically expanded within the established building
pad area. Therefore, the applicants request the granting of the
Variance so that they may have the same rights to property as others
in the same vicinity and zone, which would otherwise be denied if
they were not able to fully utilize the existing building pad area.
The Commission finds that there are significant topographical and
physical conditions which exist on the property, which impinge upon
the applicants' ability to fully utilize their property, without
damaging the environment. The Commission finds that a Variance
should be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights in
the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such Variance
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 should be
granted to Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Atkinson, Lot O-EF, 0 Eastfield Drive,
under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code
for a Variance from Section 17.16.060 front yard setback requirements
subject to the following conditions: 1) The front yard encroachment
into the minimum front yard setback, on the south side of property,
not extend beyond 41.0 feet; 2) The landscaping plan be approved by
the City; and, a bond in the amount of estimate for the cost of
landscaping, plus 15%, be posted after landscape installation, fornot
less than two years. 3) The variance approval be contingent upon
the approval of the applicant's architectural plans by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Committee.
4) This project is categorically exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act. It is, therefore, so ordered.
A motion for approval by the Planning Commission passed
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bundy, Frost, Hankins, Lay,
Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
/S/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission
/S/ Terrence L. Belanaer
Secretary, Planning Commission