235, Extension of non-conforming us, 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. Robert Rudolph
Lot 70A-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 235
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Robert Rudolph, Lot 70-A-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a variance of side yard requirements under Article III, Sec-
tion 3.07, and an extension of a non -conforming building for a residence
addition under Article V, Section 5.06 of Ordinance No. 33 came on for
hearing on the 12th day of September, 1979 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 Ordinances of the City of Rolling
Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Robert Rudolph,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 70-A-EF,
located at 2 Outrider 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 comment, written or verbal, was received in opposition to the
request, and that Mrs. Louise O'Flaherty, 18 Eastfield Drive, called
to say that she and her husband had no objection to the proposal.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
variance of side yard requirements on the south side of the property
to provide additional turning area for an addition to a garage in a
legal area, and a variance of side yard requirements and extension
of a non -conforming building on the north side for a residence
addition which would be an extension of the existing house line and
would project 6'6" into the side yard, preserving the 10' easement,
with the addition located 13'6" from the property line, in line with
the residence as it now stands. The Commission finds that a variance
of side yard requirements on the south side of the property in the
vicinity of the paved parking area should be approved, subject to
installation of a guard rail as required by the County Engineer,
said wall to be submitted to the Architectural Committee for approval
of the design. The Commission further finds that a variance of side
yard requirements and an extension of a non -conforming building on
the north side of the property should be approved for a residence
addition. The Commission finds that the variances should be granted
in order to preserve substantial property rights in the same vicinity
and zone, and that the granting of such variances would not be mater-
ially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property in
the same vicinity and zone.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that variances should
be granted under Article III, Section 3.07 and Article V, Section 5.06
of Ordinance No. 33 for an extension of a paved parking area on the
"south side of the property and a residence addition on the north side
of the property, and it is, therefore, so ordered. This approval
shall expire one year from the date of grant if not acted on.
/s/ Joanne Murdock
Chairman, Planning Commission
ecretary, Planning Commission