329, Remodel existing SFR & garage,, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
RESOLUTION NO. 555
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE
IN ZONING CASE NO. 329
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES FIND AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Roger and
Crista Hawkins for front and side yard setback variances for
property located at 37 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, California.
The application seeks a variance from Sections 17.16.070 (side
yard requirements) and Section 17.08.260 and 17.08.270 (yard and
front yard requirements) to allow an addition to an existing
residence.
Section 2. On July 15 and August 19, 1986, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public heating to consider the
application. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiving testimony,
the Commission denied the variance.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, the applicant appealed the Commission's
denial of the variance within the appeal period on August 20,
1986.
Section 4. The City Council opened the public hearing
on September 8, 1986. and continued it to September 22, 1986. A
duly noticed field trip was conducted on September 10, 1986 to
which the applicant and all members of the public were invited.
The Council has considered the evidence, both written and oral,
presented to it in connection with this application.
Section 5. In accordance with Section 17.32.030 of the
Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
1. The subject property is unique in that it is an
unusually long and narrow lot, with an existing residential
structure which is positioned 200 feet from Crest Road and
within both side yards. The house cannot be added to in
any direction without a variance due to its shape and the
rear grade and the location of private sewage disposal
facilities.
2. Approval of the variance does not give to the
applicant a special privilege because it merely allows
him to remodel and add to a house on a lot subject to
unusual constraints such as extremely narrow shape, an
exceptionally large existing front yard, a rear yard
slope and the presence of existing structures.
3. The variance is necessary to the applicant's
ability to enjoy his property to the same extent as
other similar properties in the same zone. It will
permit applicant to construct in accordance with a
design plan that makes sensible use of existing
unique conditions.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare in that the proposed
construction will not have a detrimental effect on
neighboring properties. Conditions have been imposed
to ensure that bridle trail easements on the property
are dedicated and protected from interference by both
existing fencing and proposed structures.
Section 6. In accordance with the foregoing findings
the variance sought in Zoning Case No. 329 is hereby approved,
subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto.
1986.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of October,
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 555 was adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 13th day of October, 1986 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson
Mayor Pernell
None
Councilman Heinsheimer
tem.
City Clerk /�
0 BEFORE THE PLAT NG COMMISSION OF THE CI4F ROLLING BILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application )
)
of )
) ZONING CASE NO. 329
Mr. i Mrs. Roger Hawkins )
)
Lot 241A - 3MS )
)
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Roger Hawkins, Lot 241A - 3MS, Rolling
Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section 17.32.010 of the City of
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came on for hearing on the 15th day of
July, 1986 and the 19th day of August, 1986, 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 Municipal Code
of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Roger Hawkins, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 241A - 3MS,
located at 37 Crest Road West 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 City of Rolling Hills,
California. The Commission finds, further, that no comment, written
or verbal, was received in opposition to the request at the public
hearing, and that Mr. Richard Colyear of 36 Crest Road West, made
handwritten notes on the plan and submitted same to staff which ex-
pressed an objection to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
Variance from Section 17.16.070 (side yard requirements) and
Sections 17.08.260 and 17.08.270 (yard and front yard) requirements.
The applicant has requested a 15 foot side yard encroachment into
the required 35 foot side yard requirement on the easterly side of
the property (RAS - 2 zone) which would leave a side yard of 20
feet. The applicant has requested a 19 foot side yard encroachment
into the required 35 foot side yard requirement on the easterly side
of the property which would leave a side yard of 16 feet. The
applicant indicated that there is an existing 19 foot encroachment
into the easterly side yard. The applicant has requested an
• •
encroachment of 80 feet into an established front yard of 200 feet,
which would leave a remaining front yard of 122 feet. The applicant
has requested said Variance so 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 hearing(s), it is concluded that a
Variance should not be granted to Mr. Roger Hawkins, Lot 241A - 3MS,
37,Crest Road West, under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, from to Sections 17.16.070, 17.08.260 and
17.08.270. It further concluded that the denial of said Variance
application does not deprive the applicant of property rights of the
same vicinity and zone; and therefore, it is so ordered.
/S/ Allan Rohprrc
Chairman, Planning Commission
/S/ Terrence L. Belanger
Secretary, Planning Commission