137, Construct tennis court in fron, 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. David Perrin
Lot 17-FT
ZONING CASE NO. 137
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. David Perrin, Lot 17-FT, Flying
Triangle Tract, for a conditional use permit under ARTICLE III,
Section 3.06, Front Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 came on
for hearing on the 18th day of March, 1975 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. David Perrin,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 17-FT,
Flying Triangle Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, Cali-
fornia, 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 Mr. Kenneth Watts,
1 Wrangler Road, Mr. Donald Crocker, 14 Cinchring Road and Mrs. Joan
Saffo, 1 Crest Road East, had written letters expressing opposition
to construction of a tennis court in the front yard location.
III.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a tennis court in the front
yard because the exceedingly steep terrain of the site prevents normal
use of the property, and in order to avoid massive grading the tennis
courtx must be placed in the front yard as shown on the plan submitted
with the application. Further, the applicant stated that the view
from adjacent properties would not be blocked by the tennis court due
to the proposed location on the property at the lowest possible
elevation. The Commission finds that latters from neighbors and an
appearance by residents from the area indicate that the applicant's
neighbors are not in favor of the tennis court in the front yard, and
approval of the request for a conditional use permit would violate
the intent of the zoning ordinance.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit under Article III, Section 3.06, Front Yard Requirements,
Ordinance No. 33 should not be granted to Mr. David Perrin, Lot 17-FT,
and it is therefore, so ordered.
Ili
SSâś“ecretary, Piannin
'omission
/s/ William C. Field
Chairman, Planning Commission