196, Construct a tennis court, Correspondence����1G Nllls //�� //��
City ( /Ming. Jhi
#
tf F-•
July 23, 1992
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Jankovich
35 Saddleback Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO 2 PCF T _ ;__it BEND fiCAi'
ROLLING Hi__3, CALIF. 90274
,-7.1521
FAX: is'`11 377-7288
We are sorry•about our previous letter regarding tennis court
landscaping which must have come as some surprise to you.
We have reassessed our request and determined that your Conditional
Use Permit is in compliance.
We are sorry for any inconvenience that we have caused and want to
thank you for your time and patience in this matter.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Wit CA tittc---
• •
Cii, o/
July 17. 1992
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Jankovich
35 Saddleback Road
Rolling Hills. CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 196
TENNIS COURT SCREENING
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich:
It has come to the attention of the Planning Department that the
required screening for the tennis court approved by the Planning
Commission on November 15, 1977 (attached) is not in compliance.
When the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit
for a tennis court, screening of the court with mature landscaping
was required. And, as you know, the Conditional Use Permit goes
with the land.
Section 17.16.012.E of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows a
Conditional Use Permit to be granted under certain conditions.
And, Section 17.32.120 of the Code states that after a public
hearing, the Planning Commission may revoke or modify any Variance
or Permit issued on any one of the following grounds:
"A.
That the approval was obtained by fraud;
"B. That the permit or variance granted is being or recently
has been exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such
approval or in violation of any statute. ordinance, law or
regulation;
"C. That the use for which the approval was granted is so
exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or
so as to constitute a nuisance. Ord. 188 (part), 1981:
Ord.33,SS6.12, 1960."
You are formally reauested to provide 2 sets of landscaping plans,
a cost estimate and a bond that complies with the Resolution at
once and to contact this office within the next twenty days.
If we do not receive a response from you within that period, we
have no alternative but to arrange a public hearing before the
Planning Commission to revoke or modify your Conditional Use
Permit.
PAGE 2
We would like to point out that the Delpit's court at 45 Saddleback
Road is a good example of preferred landscape screening.
You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any auestions and
will be happy to meet with you.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Yours truly,
LOLA UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager
• •
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application )
of )
) ZONING CASE NO. 196
Mr. Keith Slingsby )
)
Lot 49-RH )
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Keith Slingsby, Lot 49-RH, Rolling
Hills Tract, for a conditional use permit under Section 3.01 (D),
Paragraph 3 (a) of Ordinance No. 150, came on for hearing on the
15th day of November-1977 in the Council Chambers of the Adminis-
tration 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. Keith
Slingsby, is the owner of that certain real property described as
Lot 49-RH, located at 35 Saddleback 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, further, that no comment, written or verbal, was
received in opposition to the request, and that Mrs. Ralph Black
of 36 Saddleback Road, telephoned to state that she and Dr. Black
had no objection to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
conditional use permit for construction of a tennis court in a
legal location on his property in an area which would be at least
40' from the proposed residence on the vacant property which
adjoins his parcel. The Commission finds that a conditional use
permit should be granted in order to preserve substantial property
• •
rights in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such
conditional use permit 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 should be granted to Mr. Keith Slingsby, Lot 49-RH, 35 Saddle-
back Road under Section 3.01 (D), Paragraph 3 (a) of Ordinance No. 150
for construction of a tennis court subject to the following conditions:
1) That the tennis court fence not exceed eight feet in height; 2) That
the landscape plan be approved by the Planning Commission as well as
by the Landscape Committee; 3) That a bond in the amount of the estimate
for landscaping plus 15% for inflation be posted for not less than two
years; and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission
•
retary, Tannin:/ omm ssion