153, Construct SFR with encroachmen, 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. Sylvan Haenel
Lot 44-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 153
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Sylvan Haenel, Lot 44-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a conditional use permit under ARTICLE III, Section 3.07,
Side Yard Requirements, of Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the
18th day of May, 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. Sylvan Haenel, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 44-EF, located
at 31 Eastfield Drive in the City of Rolling Hills, California, 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.
II.
The Commission finds, further, that no communication, written or
oral, had been received in favor of or in opposition to the request.
III.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a residence addition which would
project four feet into the sideyard, and that on a field trip to the site
the Planning Commission had determined that the proposed additon would
be below road level and would not be visible from Eastfield Drive, and
that statistics submitted indicate that construction would cover 11% of
the lot, and total coverage would be 20%, within the limits set forth in
Ordinance No. 137. The Commission finds, therefore, that a conditional
use permit should be granted in order to preserve substantial property
rights possed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and that
the granting of such conditional use permit would not be materiallly
detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property in the same
vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should be granted under ARTICLE III, Section 3.07, Side Yard
Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 for construction of a residence addition
projecting four feet into the side yard to Mr. Sylvan Haenel, Lot 44-EF,
and it is, therefore, so ordered.
retary, Planning C
ission
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission