215, Construct a paddle tennis cour, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsM
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Dr. Chadwick Smith
Lot 8-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 215
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Dr. Chadwick Smith, Lot 8-EF, Eastfield Tract,
for a conditional use permit under Section 3.01, Paragraph 3 (c) of
Ordinance No. 150 for construction of a paddle tennis court and a
variance under Section Section 3.07, Side Yard requirements, of
Ordinance No. 33 for construction of a retaining wall came on for
hearing on the 17th day of October, 1978in 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, Dr. Chadwick Smith, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lots 7B &8-EF,
located at 7 Wideloop Road in the City of Rolling Hills, 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. The Commission finds that
Mr. Gerald Jo1in, 81 Eastfield Drive advised the Commission that his
property adjoins the Smith property and he said erosion caused by
drainage from the Smith property is ruining his fences. Mr. Jolin
expressed a concern about whether additional construction would
increase the problem. The Commission finds that Mr. Lowell Lusk,
architect for Dr. Smith, advised that the drainage design would be
made part of the plan, and the erosion problem would be corrected.
II.
The Commission finds that Dr. Smith has requested a conditional
use permit for construction of a paddle tennis court and a variance
for a retaining wall in the side yard which would provide for access
to the Court. The Commission finds that the requests should be granted
• •
in order to preserve substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of
such approvals would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit for construction of a paddle tennis court should be granted,,
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the City staff be requested to take particular care to
call to the attention of the City Engineer the drainage
problems in the area;
2) That the landscape plan be approved by the Landscape
Committee and submitted to the Planning Commission for review;
and that a variance should be granted for construction of a retaining
wall projecting 10 feet into the side yard, and it is, therefore, so
ordered.
The Conditional Use Permit and Variance shall be void unless
used within one year of the date of the grant.
/s/ Carol M. Hanscom
Chairman
0.a',W7:644.(49
pecretary, Planning C issio�n�