0554RESOLUTION NO. 554
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 328
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES FIND
AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Tom Jankovich
for a front yard setback variance. for property located at 35
Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, California. The application seeks
a variance to allow a portion of a proposed rebuilt. house to be
constructed in the front setback of the property.
-Section 2.- On May 2'0, 1986 and June 17, 1986, the Planning
Commission held duly noticed public hearings. to consider the
application. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiving testimony,
the Commission approved the variance.
Section 3. Pursuant to its authority under Section.
17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the City council
took jurisdiction of the variance application within the appeal
period on July 14, 1986 and ordered a de novo public hearing-.
Section 4. The City Council opened the public hearing
on August 11, 1986 and continued it to August 12, 1986, to August
25, 1986 and to September 8, 1986. A duly noticed field trip
was conducted on August 12, 1986, to which the applicant and all
members of the public were invited. The Council has considered
the evidence, both written and oral, presented to it in connection
with this application.
Section 5. In accordance with Section 17.32.030 of the
Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
'I
1. The subject property is unique in that it has i
existing foundations on which the applicant intends to
rebuild, an exisiting swimming pool, and no additional
area within which to build due to unstable soil conditions
and topography. An existing nonconforming garage which
extends into the front setback will be removed, thereby
lessening the existing intrusion into the setback area:
The variance involves construciton of a structure in an
area already occupied by a legal nonconforming wall,
which is unsightly. Thus, the new construction will
enhance the appearance of an existing structure in the
same location.
2. Approval of the variance does not give to the
applicant a special privilege because it merely allows
him to construct a house on a lot subject to unusual
constraints such as unstabl fill soil conditions and
the presence of existing structures.
3. The variance is necessary to the applicant's
ability to enjoy his property to the same extent as
other similar properties in the same zone. It will
permit applicant to construct in accordance with a
design plan that makes sensible use of existing unique
conditions. .�
Section 6. In accordance with the foregoing findings, the
variance sought in Zoning Case No. 328 is hereby approved.
1986.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED
September,
19
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 554 was
adapted by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of September, 1986
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock n
Swanson, Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
&4444
City Clele?
I•