359, A 3 ft. encroachment into the , 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 )
Zoning Case No. 359
Mr. & Mrs. Renato Curto )
Lots 11A-CF & 12-CF )
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. & Mrs. Renato Curto, Lots 11A-CF &
12-CF, Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section 17.32.010
of the City of Rolling Hilts Municipal Code, came for hearing on the
19th day of April, 1988, and the 17th day of May, 1988, 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. Renato
Curto, are the owners of that certain real property described as Lots
11A-CF & 12-CF, located at 6 Chesterfield Road in the City of Rolling
Hilts, 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 verbal comment, was received in
support of the request. Further, that there was no comment 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 setback requirements.. The property is a
conforming lot of 1.96 net acres (85,537 sq. ft.) in size, which is
located in the RAS - 1 zone (43,560sq. ft.). The lot has a
non -conforming front yard setback of 21'.0". The applicants have
requested a 3'.0" foot encroachment into the minimum front yard
setback. The property has a non -conforming width of 100'.0" where
150'.0" is the minimum width. The applicants, as a result, have
requested an encroachment into the sideyard setback whichis 20'.0"
minimum. The requested encroachment on the westerly side of the
property is 9'.0". The encroachment on the easterly side of the
property is 7'.6" . There are existing encroachments into the
sideyards.
The applicants indicate that the 1,524 sq. ft. garage 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 applicants assert 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 applicants
assert 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. Renato Curto, Lots 11A-CF & 12-CF, 6
Chesterfield Road, 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 17.16.060 sideyard setback
requirements subject to the following conditions:
1) The front yard encroachment into the minimum front yard
setback, not extend beyond 15.0 feet; 2) the sideyard encroachment
into the minimum sideyard setback not extend beyond 9.0 ft. on the
westerly side and 7'6" on the easterly side of the property. 3) A
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) The
variance approval be contingent upon the approval of the applicant's
architectural plans by the Rolling Hills Community Association
Architectural Committee; 5) 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