259, Expand garage to a 5-car garag, Resolutions & Approval Conditions1
.J W
J 0
>. BM
W m• a
'L;{{
14 3
O m• u
W Ina
N
.y
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
• 15
A• 16
17
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 ROSE, is the owner of that certain real property described in the
31 City's records as Lot 241-A-3 MS located at 37 Crest Road West in
52 the City of Rolling Hills, and that notice of public hearing in
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFOR1IA
In the Matter of the Application of
MASON H. ROSE, Applicant
Lot 241-A-3 MS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Zoning Case N
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of MASON H. ROSE, owner of the
property known by street and number as 37 Crest Road West, desig-
nated in the City's records as Lot 241-A-3 MS, for a. variance for
a side and front yard setbacks, pursuant to §§6.01 of Ordinance
33, came on for hearing before the Planning Commission on the 17th
day of February, 1981, in the Council Chambers of the Administra-
tion Building, No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA, the
Applicant being present in person representing himself in this
proceeding, and the matter having been taken under advisement by
the Commission for the purpose of making a field trip to make a
physical examination of the site for which the. variance was applied:,
and thematter having been continued to March 18, 1981, with the
consent of the Applicant, and the commissioners present at said
hearing of February 17, 1981, having made an examination of the
proposed site and the Commission having heard evidence both oral
and documentary in support of the application, and no person
appearing either in person or by written communication, opposing
the application, THE COMMISSION NOW MAKES ITS FINDINGS AND REPORT
as required by Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills:t
I
The Commission finds that the applicant, MASON H.
.r
•
1 connection with said application, was given as required by Ordi-
2 nance No. 33 as amended.
5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
II
The Commission finds that the subject property is
located on the north side of Crest Road West, a private street
and has gross acreage of approximately two acres; and that the
properties adjoining the subject property on the east and west.
are improved properties with single-family residences con-
structed thereon.
III
The Commission finds that the variance would permit
the construction of an enclosed area, 60 x 45 feet, which
area is to be fenced with a chain -link fence approximately eight
feet in height and would extend into the easterly side yard and
the front yard of the subject property and that all of the
enclosed paved area is larger than the area required for a paddle
tennis court and that Applicant proposes to use said proposed
improved area for the purpose of accommodating the playing of
basketball, volleyball, badminton and other recreational uses.
Iv
The Commission finds that there are no residential lots
on the northerly side of Crest Road on which there is an enclosed
paved area extending into the front yard setback, and that there
are no tennis courts, paddle tennis courts, volleyball, basket-
ball or badminton facilities located in the front yard setbacks
of any properties on Crest Road West.
v
52 The Commission finds that the proposed improvement
-2-
J,
0
tN
LsO
p
• �0
ma;;
• Do
xogoN
• nv
a336z
2JNx°s
• N
N U
an
2 amp
VO
1 would, in addition to the uses recited in Finding Iv above,
g also be used to accommodate additional parking. An engineering
a drawing of the proposed improvement and its exact location in the
4 side and front yard setback, was offered into evidence by the
5 Applicant and received by the Commission and marked "Exhibit A.",
6-
7 vi
8 The Commission further finds that, from an examination
9 of the property, the proposed chain -link fence at its highest',
10 point would be thirteen feet above the natural grade of the
11 northerly boundary line of the Crest Road easement and that from
12 the centerline of the Crest Road easement the fence would extend
13 approximately twenty feet above the natural grade.
14
15 vII
16 The Applicant has not established that the subject
17 property would suffer any hardship if the proposed variance is
18 not granted; and, to the contrary, the Commission finds that the
19 approval of the variance would have the effect of granting to
20 the subject property a special privilege not enjoyed by or per-
21 mitted to other property in the vicinity.
22
23 vIII
24
25 would be contrary to the public welfare of other property in the
26 vicinity in that it would detract from the character and basic
27 charm of property with frontage on Crest Road in the vicinity
28 of the subject property.
The Commission finds that the granting of the variance
29
30 IX
31 The Commission finds that the topography and shape
32 of the subject property, and the location of the improve-
-3-
J
1 ments thereon does not require the location of the proposed
improvements as shown on Exhibit A, and that there are other
3 locations on the subject property where such an improvement.
4 could be located.
5
6 x
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
R0 14
J �
W • w<
15
• z'm
oo R. ,; 16
G w F n a
a1g6z 17
zAw
o U)0a
11� 18
m2 19
go
• 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The Commission finds that the construction of t
proposed recreation court and parking area as shown on Exhibit,A,..
would have an adverse effect on properties located in the vicinity.
and would substantially detract from the natural beauty of the
area.
REPORT
1. From the foregoing, it is concluded that the
Applicant has not shown any exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions which are applicable to the subject property
or the intended use thereof which do not apply generally to all
other property located in the vicinity thereof..
2. The denial of Applicant's variance will not
deprive Applicant of the enjoyment of a substantial property right
which is possessed and enjoyed by owners of other lots in the
vicinity but which is denied to the subject property. The granting
of the subject variance will be materially detrimental to the publi:
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
vicinity of or adjoining the subject property.
3. A granting of the variance as requested by
Applicant would authorize a use of the property which is not
otherwise expressly permitted by Ordinance No. 33 of the City of
Rolling Hills.
The ,granting'
effect of granting the applicant a special privilege not
3 ;by other property
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
the same vicinity and zone.
a variance would have the
shared
5. It is therefore concluded from the Findings
heretofore made, that the application of Mason H. Rose, 37 Crest
Road West, for a variance for the construction of a recreational
court and parking area as proposed on Exhibit A, should be
6. The Applicant is further advised that
111 time within which to seek judicial review of this action i.
12governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the
13. State of California.
14
15
16
�fChglrman
17'
27
28
29
30
31
32
-5-
• •
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY.OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of )
MASON H. ROSE, V )
Zoning Case No. 259
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mason H. Rose, Lot 241-A-3-MS, Miscellaneous
Parcels, for side and front yard variances, from the requirements of
Sections 3.06 and 3.07 of Article III of Ordinance No. 33 of the
City of Rolling Hills, came on regularly for hearing before the
Planning Commission on November 18, 1980, Jody Murdock presiding
at the hearing as Chairman, and all members of the Commission being
present and the applicant not appearing in person but having caused
a plot plan of the proposed improvements for which the variances were
requested to be submitted in evidence, and no person having appeared
in person either in favor of or in opposition to the requested var-
iances, and the matter having been discussed among the Commissioners,
the Chairman ordered the matter continued for an on -site inspection
of the premises at the hour of 7 a.m. on November 25, 1980, and the
applicant and all Commissioners being present at said inspection, and
the Commission having inspected the proposed location of the improve-
ments, Commissioner Watts having left the meeting at 7:20 a.m., and
the Commissioners having informally agreed to divide the matter into
two parts, consisting of Part A, the garage side yard variance, and
Part B, the front and side yard variance, and the Commission having
informally agreed to grant Part A, the side yard variance for the
garage, Chairman Murdock then continued the meeting to December 9,
1980 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, and the
applicant having appeared at said time and place in behalf of his
application and having submitted evidence in support thereof to the
Commissioners, THE COMMISSION, HAVING BEEN ADVISED, NOW MAKES ITS
FINDINGS AND REPORT AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. 33 OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS:
I
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mason H. Rose V, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 241-A-3-MS,
located at 37 Crest Road West 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. The
Commission finds, further, that no comment, written or verbal, was
received in favor of or in opposition to the request.
II
The Commission finds that the application for a variance for
the construction of a 30 x 50 foot garage in the sideyard extending
along the easterly boundary of the property (Part A of the appli-
cation) will permit construction of the building in such a way so
that it will extend to within eight and one half feet of the easterly
boundary of applicant's property. Applicant requests a front yard
variance for the purpose of constructing a paved area (as shown on
the map submitted to the Commission) to provide for recreation and
guest parking, which area lies adjacent to and southerly of the pro-
posed garage and lies in the front and side yard setback. The
Commission finds that applicant's property is designated also as Lot 3
of Tract 29408 of Official Records of Los Angeles County, and that
said lot was conveyed to applicant without perimeter or boundary line
easements having been conveyed or recorded as required by the Sub-
division Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, and it is the
applicant's contention that he purchased the property without boundary
line easements and that therefore he should not be required to grant
easements to the City of Rolling Hills as a condition of granting
this variance.
III
The Commission finds that all members of the Planning Commission
met with applicant and the City Manager, Teena Clifton, at 7 a.m.
on Tuesday, November 25, 1980, at the site, 37 Crest Road West,
Rolling Hills. The Commission finds, further, that applicant submit-
ted a statement from Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, that he has
no objection to the request for variances. The Commission finds that
the applicant stated he would not grant boundary easements, but. did
indicate his willingness to allow the use of portions of his property
for underground utility purposes should, that ever become necessary,
providing that it does not disturb the improvements on the property
and does not incur any cost to him as the property owner.
IV
The Commission finds that there are at present two known
violationson the property consisting of the erection of an illegal
horse shelter constructed without a permit and that applicant is
keeping a stallion on the property, which stallion .is not kept in
an enclosure as required by City ordinance.
The Commission finds that the plans submitted in evidence show
proposed masonry entry posts and fencing in the road easement.
V
The Commission finds that the approval of Part A of said
application for a variance of a side yard requirement for the
construction of the proposed garage should be separated from the
request fora variance of front yard and side yard requirements for
the construction of a paved area for recreation and guest parking
area to be designated as Part B of said application and further
that additional information should be submitted in support of Part B
before further action is taken by the Commission.
VI
The side yard variance is granted and approved by the Commission
subject to the following conditions, which must be complied with prior
to the issuance of a building permit by the City of Rolling Hills:
1. Proper stallion fencing must be provided for the stallion
being stabled on applicant's property, which fencing shall
meet the requirements of the ordinances of the City of Rolling
Hills;
2. The horse shelter now existing and constructed without a
permit must be removed from the property;
3. Corrected maps shall be filed with the Commission, which
maps shall show the property as it actually exists and shall
not show the perimeter or boundary line easements or posts or
fences in the Crest Road easement. Said maps shall also show.
the location of the proposed improvements for which the vari-
ances have been requested by the applicant.
VII
The action of the Planning Commission on November 25, 1980
was ratified by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1980, on
a motion made by Commissioner Roberts, that the variance for side
yard requirements for construciton of a garage was approved subject
to the conditions stated in Section VI above and that consideration
of the request for a variance of front and side yard requirements
for a paved area for recreation and guest parking was deferred for
submittal of corrected plans on or before the February 1981 meeting
of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Field and carried on a roll call vote. The Commission finds that
Commissioners Field, Hanscom, Roberts and Chairman Murdock voted in
the affirmative and Commissioner Watts asked that the record show he
abstained from voting because he was not informed and was not aware
that a vote would be taken in the field, and left the meeting before
the vote was taken and he felt he did not have sufficient information
to vote.
VIII
The applicant is advised that the time within which to seek
judicial review of the action of the Planning Commission is governed
by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pursuant to Resolu-
tion No. 421 adopted by the City of Rolling Hills on October 22, 1979.
4,4147f7 /%` 60
Cha' man Pl
anning lannirrg Commission
•
cretary, Planning Co )'ission
December 29, 1980