347, Addition of 142 sq ft to exist, 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. & Mrs. John Evenson )
)
Lot 95-A-EF )
)
Zoning Case No. 347
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. & Mrs. John Evenson, Lot 95-A-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 15th
day of September 1987, and the 20th day of October 1987 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. John
Evenson, are the owners of that certain real property described as
Lot 95-A-EF, located at 44 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 and
Section 17.16.070 side yard requirements. The property is a
non -conforming lot of .82 net acres (35,720 sq. ft.) in size, which
is less than the minimum lot size for the RAS - 1 zone (43,560 sq.
ft.). Also, the street frontage is approximately 103 feet in length
which is less than the 150 foot lot frontage requirement. The
applicants have requested a 10.0 foot encroachment into the
non -conforming minimum front yard setback. The non -conforming front
yard setback is 46.0 feet in the area of requested encroachment. The
current non -conforming minimum front yard setback is 36.0 feet. The
requested encroachment would not extend beyond the non -conforming
36.0 foot front yard setback. The applicants have requested a 5.0
foot encroachment into the minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, on
the north side of the property, which would leave a 15.0 foot side
yard setback. The applicants have requested the encroachment into
the minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, where a non -conforming
encroachment of 5.0 feet already exists. The applicants indicate that
the 142 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. John Evenson, Lot 95-A-EF, 44 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
and Section 17.16.070, side yard setback requirements subject to the
following conditions:
1) The front yard encroachment into the
minimum front yard setback, on the west side of property, not extend
beyond 36.0 feet; 2) The side yard encroachment into the minimum
side yard setback, on the north side of property, not exceed 5 feet.
3) 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, for not less than two years. 4) This
project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act. It is, therefore, so ordered.
/S/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission
/S/ Terrence L. Belanaer
Secretary, Planning Commission