136, Construct a pool, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• st
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS.ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Floyd J. Prince
Lot 80-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 136
FINDINGS AND. REPORT
The application of Mr. Floyd J."Prince, .Lot 80-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a conditional use permit under Article III, Section 3.06,
Front Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on
the 17.th day of December, 1974 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. Floyd J. Prince,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 80-EF,
Eastfield Tract, located 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.
II.
The Commission further finds that no person appeared at!said
public hearing in opposition to the application, and that Mr. Gordon
Potter, 7 Outrider Road, called the office to say that he had no'
objection to a swimming pool in the Princes' front yard, but would
have a strong objection to a pool in their rear yard, as it would
infringe on his privacy because of the unusual shape of the two
properties.
III.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a swimming pool in the
front yard adjacent to a proposed residence addition that would
containbath: and dressing facilities.. -The -applicant has s-tated. that
another location on the property would be inconvenient, because of
lack of bath and dressing facilities in the area of the pool, and
further, an existing paddle tennis court would have to be removed
from the rear yard to permit construction of a pool in the rear of
the -residence, --and-a horse -trail along the -side —of the property
would deprive the residents of privacy if the pool were located in
the rear yard. The Commission finds that a conditional use permit
should be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should be granted under Article III, Section 3.06, Front
Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 to Mr. Floyd J. Prince, Lot 80-EF,
subject to a list of conditions of approval made a part of the file,
including a requirement for a bond to insure the faithful performance
of the proposed landscape protram in an amount to be determined by
the City Staff, and further, that approval of the request for a
conditional use permit for construction of a swimming pool in the
front yard does not imply approval of the esthetics of a wrought
iron fence on top of the concrete retaining wall or relocation of
a three rail fence in the easement, since such matters are under
the jurisdiction and control of the Rolling Hills Community Associ-
ation, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Godfrey Pernell
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
RETARY, PLANNING CO ISSION