29, Construct garage into side yar, Resolutions & Approval Conditions2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of
KENNETH E. GRAHAM and
PATRICIA H. GRAHAM,
husband and wife
Lot 46, Eastfield Tract
For a Side Yard Variance
Zoning Case No. 29
FINDINGS AND FORMAL REPORT '
The application of KENNETH E. GRAHAM and PATRICIA H.
14 GRAHAM, husband and wife, Lot 46, Eastfield, for a Side Yard Vari-
15 ance, came on for hearing on the 8th day of April, 1963, at the hour
16
f 8 o'clock p.m., at the City Hall, City of Rolling Hills, Cali-
17
fornia; Commissioners Good, Gray and Natland being present and
18
constituting a quorum of the Commission and Commissioners Blakey
19
20
and Mahan being absent. Evidence having been submitted by appli-
21 cants in support of their application and the Planning Commission
22 being fully advised, now makes its findings and formal .report •as
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
required by Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills, California:
1. The Commission finds that applicants Kenneth E.
Graham and Patricia H. Graham, husband and wife,
are the owners of that certain real property
described as Lot 46, Eastfield Tract, located
in the City of Rolling Hills, State of California,
and that notice of said hearing on said applic-
ation was given as required by Sections 8.06 and
8.07 of Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling
Hills, California.
2. No person appeared at said hearing in opposition
to the application for a side yard variance.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. The Commission further finds that applicants
intend to construct a residence on said lot
which residence will be located as set forth
on the plot plan prepared by Jack Chernoff for
and on behalf of applicants, which plot plan
was received in evidence by the Commission and
that said proposed construction would require
the use by applicants., of a portion. of the ten -
foot easement extending along the northeasterly
line of said lot as a driveway from Eastfield
Drive to said residence, and as a way of ingress
and egress to astable and corral which applic-
ant intends to construct upon said property at
a future time.
4. The Commission further finds that as a result
of a physical examination of the property, the
use of the side yard as requested in the appli-
cation for variance should not be granted to
applicants for the reason that granting the
same would encroach upon the existing bridle
trail, public utility and road easement as
reserved in the Declaration of Restrictions
affecting said property for the benefit, of all
residents in the City of Rolling Hills.
5. The Commission further finds that there are not
extraordinary circumstances or conditions, which
are applicable to the proposed use of said ease-
ment that do not apply generally to all other
propertyin the vicinity of said real property
and that a variance as requested by applicants
is not necessary for the preservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right possessed
by other property in the same vicinity but which
is denied to the real, property owned by applicant.
6. The Commission further finds that the granting of
a variance as requested by applicants would be
injurious to the property and improvementslocated
in the vicinity and zone in which the property
owned by applicants is located.
From the foregoing, itis concluded that a variance as
27 requested by applicants should be denied and it is therefore so
28
29
30
31
32
ordered.
Dated: This 18th day of April, 1963.
Secretary pro tem
Chairman of the Planning Commission