0555r�,J
RESOLUTION NO. 555
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE
IN ZONING CASE NO. 329
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES FIND AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Roger and
Crista Hawkins for front and side yard setback variances for
property located at 37 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, California.
The application seeks a variance from Sections 17.16.070 (side
yard requirements) and Section 17.08.260 and 17.08.270 (yard and
front yard requirements) to allow an addition to an existing
residence.
Section 2. On July 15 and August 19, 1986, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
application. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiving testimony,
the Commission denied the variance.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, the applicant appealed the Commission's
denial of the variance within the appeal period on_ August 20,
1986.
Section 4. The City Council opened the public hearing
on September 8, 1986 and continued it to September 22, 1986. A
duly noticed field trip was conducted on September 10, 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:
1. The subject property is unique in that it is an
unusually long and narrow lot, with an existing residential
structure which is positioned 200 feet from Crest Road and
within both side yards. The house cannot be added to in
any direction without a variance due to its shape and the
rear grade and the location of private sewage disposal
facilities.
2. Approval of the variance does not give to the
applicant a special privilege because it merely allows
him to remodel and add to a house on a lot subject to
unusual constraints such as extremely narrow shape, an
exceptionally large existing front yard, a rear yard
slope 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.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare in that the proposed
construction will not have a detrimental effect on
neighboring properties. Conditions have been imposed
to ensure that bridle trail easements on the property
are dedicated and protected from interference by both
existing fencing and proposed structures.
1,
00
W
m
Q
I J�
21
Section 6. In accordance with the foregoing findings
the variance sought in Zoning Case No. 329 is hereby approved,
subject to the conditions contained.in Exhibit A attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of October,
1986.
ATTEST:
AV41t� Ce
- &Zte ---
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 555 was.adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 13th day of October, 1986 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Heiksheimer
CX/N4Wf Ju/��
City Clerk /)