190, Addition to SFR with continuei, 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. Rowland D. Weber
Lot 112-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 190
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Rowland Weber, Lot 112-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a conditional use permit under ARTICLE III, Section 3.07,
Side Yard Requirements and ARTICLE V, Section 5.06, Extension of Non-
conforming Use of Conforming Building, Ordinance No. 33, came on for
hearing on the 19th day of April, 1977 in the Council Chambers of the
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Cali-
fornia, 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. Rowland Weber,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 112-EF
located at 6 Open Brand Road in the City of Rolling Hills, 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 communication, written or verbal, was received in favor of or
in opposition to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant requests the conditional
addition
use permit for a residence/which would encroach into the side yard on
both sides of the house, and which would extend the roofline of an
existing portion of the building which already projects into the side
yard. The Commission finds that a conditional use permit for residence
addition which would extend the living area into the side yard on the
east side of the property should be granted in order to preserve sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other property in the same
•
vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such conditional use permit
would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious
to property in the same vicinity and zone. The Commission further finds
that a conditional use permit for a storage room which would project
into the side yard on the west side of the property would not be in
keeping with the intent of the ordinance, which requires demonstration
of hardship, since a storage room is not a necessity, and a conditional
use permit for such improvement should not be issued.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditionalii.use permit
should be granted for construction of a residence addition on the east
side of the property which would encroach into the side yard and would
extend an existing non-conformance of a conforming building, and that
a conditional permit for construction of a storage room on the west side
of the property should be denied, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission
peretarY, llannig Commission