262, Construct a tennis court, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of )
GERALD KATELL, Applicant ) Toning Case NO. 262
Lot 174-B-MS
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of GERALD KATELL, owner of the property
designated as 27 Crest Road West, also referred to in the City's
records as Lot 174-B-MS, for a Variance for a front yard setback,
pursuant to Section 1.29, Ordinance No. 33, Section 3.06, Ordinance
No. 169, and a Conditional Use Permit under Section 3.01, Paragraph
3 (a) of Ordinance No. 170, came on for hearing before the Planning
Commission on January 20, 1981 in the Council Chambers of the Admin-
istration Building, No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills,
California, the applicant being present in person, and being, also,
represented in these proceedings by South Bay Engineering Corporation,
Engineers, and Mr. Jeff Harris, Landscape Architect, and the matter
having been presented to the Commission, Commission having elected to
make physical examination of the site for which the Variances and
Conditional Use Permit were requested, and the matter having been
continued to February 171:1981, and the applicant having submitted an
amended plan for the location of the proposed improvement in the rear
yard of the property, the matter being continued to March 17, 1981, and
with the consent of the applicant and on that date, the matter again
having been continued with the consent of the applicant to April 21,
1981, for the purpose of permitting applicant to submit additional
evidence, and the Commission having visited and made an examination
of the proposed site and having heard evidence, both oral and documen-
tary, in support of the application for a Conditional Use Permit and
a Variance of front yard setback, and, also, for a Conditional Use
Permit for construction of a tennis court in the rear yard, and the
Commission having taken into consideration testimony of Mr. and Mrs.
S. D. Weiman in opposition to said front yard Variance, and comments
of Mrs. Julie Heinsheimer in opposition to construction of a tennis
court in the rear yard, Commission now makes its findings and report
• •
as required by Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, GERALD KATELL,
is the owner of that certain real property described in the City's
records as Lot 174-B-MS designated as 27 Crest Road West in the City
of Rolling Hills, and that notice of public hearing in connection
with application for said Variance and Conditional Use Permit was
given as required by Ordinance No. 33 as amended, and that additional
notice was given in connection with the amended plan submitted to the
Commission for a Conditional Use Permit as required by said Ordinance.
II.
The Commission finds that the subject property is located
on the north side of Crest Road West, a private street, and has a
gross acreage in excess of four acres; and that the properties adjoin-
ing the subject property on the east and west are improved properties
with single family residences constructed thereon.
III.
The Commission finds that the granting of a Variance in the
front yard would permit the construction of an enclosed area for a
tennis court and accessory uses in connection therewith as shown on
Exhibit A. Said area is, larger than normally required for the use
of a tennis court, and the Applicant proposes to use said additional
area for the purpose of accommodating his guests wishing to play the
game of tennis and to provide an area for the serving of refreshments.
IV.
The Commission finds that there are no residential lots in
the northerly side of Crest Road on which there is an enclosed paved
area extending into the front yard setback, and that there are no
tennis courts located in the front yard setbacks on any properties
on Crest Road West.
V.
Location of the proposed tennis court in the front yard
would detract from the use and enjoyment of other properties in the
neighborhood, and that said tennis court could be located in the area
• •
designated as the rear yard without detracting from the use and
enjoyment of the owners of other properties in the vicinity.
VI.
Applicant has not established that the subject property
would suffer any hardship if the proposed Variance in the front is
not granted, and to the contrary, the Commission finds that the
approval of the variance would have the effect of granting to the
applicant's property a special privilege not enjoyed by or permitted
to other property in the vicinity.
VII.
The Commission further finds that from a physical examin-
ation of the property, said tennis court could be located in the
rear yard requiring only a Conditional Use Permit, as shown on
Exhibit B of the Commission's records. The proposed tennis court,
in such a location, would be well removed from Crest Road and all
other roadways in the area.
VIII.
The proposed court in the rear yard will be partially sub-
terranean and would be isolated from residences on adjoining property.
IX.
The Commission further finds that the applicant has re-
located the proposed tennis court to the rear yard of the property
in question and has requested the Commission to grant a Conditional
Use Permit for said tennis court to be located as shown on Exhibit
B of these proceedings.
X.
The proposed use located in the rear yard of the subject
property is adjacent to and compatible with surrounding property
including stables and other tennis courts.
XI.
The Commission finds that the topography and shape of the
subject property, and the location of the improvement in the rear
yard as shown on Exhibit B is the best location for such improvement.
-3-
• •
XII.
The Commission finally finds that construction of the
proposed tennis court as shown on Exhibit B in the rear yard would
not have an adverse effect on the properties located in the vicinity
of the subject property and would not substantially detract from
the natural beauty of properties in the vicinity of the subject
property.
XIII.
The Commission finds that the construction of the proposed
tennis court as shown on Exhibit A in the front yard of the subject
property would have an adverse effect on other properties located in
the vicinity and would substantially detract from the natural beauty
of all properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
REPORT
1. From the foregoing it is concluded that the granting of
a Variance for the construction of a tennis court in the front yard
as shown on Exhibit A does not demonstrate any exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions which are applicable only to the
subject property or the intended use of said front yard which do not
apply generally to all other property located in the vicinity of the
subject property.
2. Applicant's request for a Variance in the front yard
for construction of a tennis court, if denied, will not derive appli-
cant of the enjoyment of a substantial property right which is
possessed and enjoyed by owners of other lots in the vicinity, but
which is denied to the subject property. The granting of such a
Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and
injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity of or
adjoining the subject property.
3. Granting of the Variance in the front yard as requested
by the applicant would authorize the use of the property which is
not otherwise expressly permitted by Ordinance No. 33 of the City
*of Rolling Hills.
• •
4. The granting of a front yard Variance would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property
in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property.
5. It is therefore concluded from the findings heretofore
made that the application of GERALD KATELL, 27 Crest Road West, for a
Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for the construction of a tennis
court and accessory areas in connection therewith in the front yard as
shown on Exhibit A should be denied.
6. It is furtherand finally concluded from the findings
heretofore made, that the application of GERALD KATELL for a Conditional
Use Permit for the construction of a tennis court in the rear yard of
the property at 27 Crest Road West could be granted subject to the
applicant complying with conditions numbered 1 to 14, inclusive, of
Conditions of Approval - Tennis Courts, as amended as follows:
Condition No. 8 shall read: "A landscape plan and irrigation system
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval
prior to -grading"; Condition No. 13 shall be deleted; such conditions
having been established by the Commission as pertaining to the use for
which this Conditional Use Permit is granted, and which are on file
in the records of the Commission.
7. Applicant is further advised that the time within which
to seek Judicial review of the action of the Planning Commission in
this matter is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure of the State of California.
Dated: May 11, 1981
(44 4)flatd6cV
V Ch#irman
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENNIS COURTS .
�g
While a complete list of conditions cannot be recommended until a
public hearing has been held and all testimony taken, the following
list of conditions pertaining to tennis courts is provided:
1. This Conditional Use Permit shall not be effective for any
purpose until the owner of the property involved, or his duly
authorized representative, has filed with the City Clerk of the
City of Rolling Hills an affidavit stating that he is aware of
and agrees to comply with all the conditions of the Permit.
2. It is declared to be the intent of the Planning Commission that
if any provision of the Permit is held or declared to be invalid,
the permit shall be void and the privileges granted thereunder
shall lapse.
3. It is declared and made a condition of the Permit that if any
conditions thereof are violated, or if any law, statute or
ordinance is violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation
and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days.
4. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in
which the subject property is located must be complied with.un-
less otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan.
5. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A"
except as otherwise provided herein.
6. Tennis court fences shall be a maximum of eight (8) feet in
height above the surface level of the court.
7. All new slopes shall be landscaped with ground cover and trees
to screen the court area.
8. A landscape plan and irrigation system shall be submitted to .
the Planning Commission for review and approvald S ot.dx,.,1.
9. All proposed walls shall be a uniform earthen color. The color
and material shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
10. A bond shall be deposited with the City, to be held until
eighteen months after completion,to guarantee the satisfactory
growth and maintenance of the required landscaping.
11. All landscaping shall be planted and the irrigation system shall
be installed concurrent with completion of the tennis court.
12. Tennis court fence shall be balck or dark green vinyl coated
chain link.
dd Lional-cfZstr-eel-parking-may--be-r-equt d: AR/an
Prior to issuance of building permits a grading plan satisfactory
to the City Engineer shall be submitted.
This Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year
from the date of grant.
.3 Or "iotot.ovi,
March 18, 1980