12, Addition to existing SFR, Resolutions & Approval Conditions1
2
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 In the matter of the Application
4 of
5 KATHRYN K. LEARNED
6 Lot 121) Rolling Hills (MB 201-29/35)
7
8
ZONING CASE NO. 12
FINDINGS AND FORMAL REPORT
9
10 The application of Kathryn-K, Learned, Lot 121, Rolling
11 Hills) for a front yard variance, came on for hearing on the'20th,
12 day of June, 1961, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., at the City Hall of
13
14
the City of Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant having
submitted evidence in support of her application, and the Plan-
15
ning Commission being advised, now makes its Findings and Formal
16
Report as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling
17
18 Hills, California.
19 I.
20 The .Commission finds that the applicant, Kathryn K.
21 Learned, is the owner of that certain real property described
22 as. Lot 121, Rolling Hills, located in the City of Rolling Hills,
23
California) and that notice of the public hearing in connection
24
with said application was given as required by Sections 8.06 and
25
26 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
27 Ix.
28 That no person appeared at said public hearing in
29 opposition to the application fora variance and that no evidence
30 was received by the Commission in opposition thereto.
31
32
.l
2
3
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
32
II.
The Commission further finds that the proposed residence
addition of .applicant is to be located twelve (12) feet from the
front. line of said Lot instead of thirty (30) feet as required
by said Zoning Ordinance, and further finds that by reason of
the terrain of said Lot 121, the. variance should be granted to.
applicant in order to preserve substantial propertyrights poss-
essed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and that
the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to property or`improvements
in such vicinity and zone in which applicant's property is
located, and that there are .exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances and conditions by reason of physical location and
terrain of said °Lot :121, which do not apply generally to other
property in the same vicinity and zone.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a variance
should be granted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rolling Hills to Kathryn K. Learned of Lot 121 of Rolling Hills
in accordance with the Plot Plan marked Exhibit 1 on file in
these proceedings, and
79
Secre
'Dated: June
it is, therefore, so ordered.
28, 1961,
ry, Planning Commission
Chairman, Planning om ► lion