Loading...
593 MOD, Request to allow the tennis co, Staff Reports•eity ot DATE: MARCH 24, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 9C Mtg. Date: 3/24/03 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 593MOD. (NAGELHOUT). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-06, which is attached, on March 18, 2003 at their regular meeting granting a request for a modification of a condition of approval of a previously approved CUP for a tennis court, at 16 Crest Road West. The vote was 5-0. 2. The applicants requested a modification to the previously approved 4-foot perimeter tennis court fence, to allow a 6-foot tennis design. The proposed fence would be 6 feet above the 4-foot retaining wall for a total of 10 feet. 3. The Planning Commission at the March 18, 2003 meeting requested that staff include a condition in the Resolution of Approval requiring that the trees on the property immediately adjacent to the tennis court, which were required by the original approval to screen the tennis court, be kept trimmed, so that the view of the ocean from the walking path along Crest Road West is not obstructed. 4. In addition, the Planning Commission, during the deliberation for approval of this request for modification, found that the proposed six-foot fence on top of the four -foot block wall will not be detrimental or aesthetically unpleasing because of the location of the tennis court, which is 34 feet to 40 feet below Crest Road West, (due to the slightly sloping area of Crest Road parallel to the court playing surface), and is not visible from other Rolling Hills residential ZC No. 593.Mod CC 3/24/03 r properties. The Planning Commission directed staff to include these findings in the Resolution. 5. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-10 on March 16, 1999 allowing the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court on subject property. Condition "M" of the resolution of approval requires that "tennis court fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining walls for a total of 8 feet". 6. In the letter, the applicants state that an 8-foot fence is not sufficient to keep the tennis balls from leaving the court during play. Their contractor, whose business is constructing tennis courts, believes that the standard tennis court fencing is 10-12 feet. The applicants also state that the tennis court is well screened from view from Crest Road, and from their neighbor to the east. 7. The property borders the School District's property to the southwest and Rancho Palos Verdes to the south. The properties to the south are located up - slope from subject property. The Rolling Hills Community Association allows maximum of 10 feet fencing for tennis courts. 8. The tennis court surface and retaining wall have been completed and the landscaping is in place. In December, staff observed the higher than approved posts for the fence and requested that construction of the fence cease. 9. The original approval was for a 7,000 square foot tennis court, which required 360 cubic yards of cut soil and 360 cubic yards of fill soil and involved 9,120 square feet of graded area, (10,000 sq.ft. maximum). 10. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,229 square feet or 38.6% (40% maximum). 11. The 10,422 square foot residential building pad coverage is 45.7% and the 10,547 square foot tennis court pad coverage is 66.4%. Total building pad coverage is 52.6%. 12. The structural lot coverage is 17,518 square feet or 19.75% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage is 29,046 square feet or 32.75% (35% permitted). 13. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the project southeast of the building pad. Access to the stable is available from Crest Road West along the eastern side yard easement. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the staff report and the Resolution of Approval, or provide direction to staff. ZC No. 593.Mod CC 3/24/03 zU ti • • ZONING CASE NO. 593 Modification SPORTS COURT REQUEST RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) TENNIS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS EXISTING AS APPROVED House and Tennis Court Residence 7,742 sq.ft. Garage 1,600 sq.ft. Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. Tennis Court 7,000 sq.ft. Service yard 100 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 17,518 sq.ft. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill 38.6% 19.75% 32.75% 45.7% 66.4% 52.6% 450 sq.ft. stable 550 sq.ft. corral Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West at eastern easement No change Planning Commission reviewed PLANTS AND ANIMALS Planning Commission reviewed ZC No. 593.Mod CC 3/24/03 3 (9 RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZC No. 593.Mod CC 3/24/03 AS APPROVED Proposed 450 sq.ft. stable and 550 sq.ft. corral Not in front yard Not within 50 feet from any paved road or street easement The court is inset 4 feet below grade. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Located on a gently sloped area of the lot. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill Graded area is 9,120 sq.ft. Required condition Required condition Required condition Required condition Required condition Required condition 4�V • • Planning Commission No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 12, 2003 Dear Members: Robert & Julie Nagelhout 16 Crest Road W Rolling Hills, CA 90274 We are requesting a minor modification to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit which approved the building of a tennis court on the west side of our property. Specifically we are requesting that the height of the eight (8) foot barrier surrounding the tennis court be increased by two (2) feet to a total of ten (10) feet. The current permit calls for an eight (8) foot barrier (consisting of four (4) feet of retaining wall below ground level and four (4) feet of fence above ground level). Our request would modify this to having a ten (10) foot barrier consisting of four (4) feet of retaining wall below ground level and six (6) feet of fence above ground level. The reason for this request is that the eight (8) foot barrier called for in the original permit is insufficient for practical use of the tennis court. Essentially, this height is not sufficient to keep the tennis balls from leaving the court during play. This is confirmed from our own experience and from the expertise of Richard Zaino (our tennis court contractor). He has been building tennis courts for several decades and is unaware of any courts where the fence has been built to be less than 10 feet in height (the standard for residential courts according to Mr. Zaino is 10' — 12' in height). The tennis court development is almost complete but we have halted construction until the planning commission rules on our request. The pictures included with our request show the fence posts above the retaining wall. They are currently set at 6 (six) feet because we failed to inform Mi. Zaino of the four (4) foot restriction. Without specific instructions he presumed that we were interested in a standard six (6) foot fence. There was no intent on our part to deviate from the plan without approval from the planning commission. In fact, several years ago when we discovered the height issue we discussed it with Craig Nealis but he was unwilling to allow a variance from the permit without approval from the planning commission. So much time had elapsed from the time we spoke with Craig before we began construction on the court that we forgot to inform Mr. Zaino, and to re -address the issue with the planning commission. The variance was discovered when Yolanta Schwartz inspected the tennis court site. The upside of the 6' posts is that we are able to clearly show the impact of the two (2) foot variance in the fence. We have taped off the posts at the four (4) foot level (the top of the tape is 4') so that the impact of the variance can be easily visualized. We plan to include pictures with our modification request, and if anyone is interested in seeing it for themselves we have left the tape on the fence so that the difference between the 4' and 6' height can be observed. We understand that it is the desire of the planning commission to minimize the exposure of sport courts in the city so that we can preserve and maintain a natural and rural atmosphere. We believe that our request supports this and should be approved by the planning commission for the following reasons: 1. Regardless of the height at 4' or 6' the landscaping surrounding our property is going to completely disguise the tennis court. We have planted trees that will grow well above 30' in height all around the west side of our property where the tennis court resides. This includes the portion on Crest Road in the easement for which we have a previously approved permit from the community to plant trees. 2. The tennis court surface is 35' below Crest Road making it impossible to see the court at this time except for individuals walking on the trail in the direct proximity around the court. And as previously mentioned, the exposure from the trail will also be eliminated once the trees grow a few more feet. We believe the attached pictures demonstrate this. 3. This side of our property does not border any homes in Rolling Hills. It borders either Rancho Palos Verdes, or the Rancho Del Mar school property, which means that there is no impact on any neighbors in Rolling Hills. We thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and hope you will look favorably upon our request. We look forward to meeting with you to answer any questions you may have. Sineerely, ,—...1.. l.1 7 L- „... ,, Robert & Julie Nagelhout • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 593MOD. (NAGELHOUT). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West,. Rolling Hills, requesting a modification to a condition imposed for a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court. B. On March 16, 1999 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-10 allowing the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court. Condition "M" 'of the resolution requires that "tennis court fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the four -foot high retaining wall for a total of eight feet". C. The applicants request modification to allow the construction of a six-foot high fence surrounding the tennis court, instead of the four -foot fence approved previously, for a total height of ten feet. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a duly noticed public hearing on February 18, 2003, at which time information was presented indicating the necessity for the modification. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project to modify Zoning Case No. 593 qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.42.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to make certain findings to lawfully grant a request for a Conditional Use Permit. When the Planning Commission previously granted Conditional Use Permit the required findings were set forth in Section 6 of Resolution No. 99-10. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the findings contained in that prior resolution are applicable to and can be made again in their entirety as the findings for the project as modified and are, accordingly, incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, with respect to the request for modification to allow a higher than previously approved tennis court fence, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. This modification applies specifically to subject property and is not design to set a precedence for any future tennis court fencing, and is based on the following findings: (i) The playing surface of the tennis court is located between 34 feet to 40 feet below the elevation of Crest Road West (ii) The tennis court is not visible from any other Rolling Hills residential property and is adjacent to a recreational area of a PVPUSD site utilized for educational purposes. Section 5. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 99-10, dated March 16, 1999 as follows: A. Paragraph "M" of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Tennis court fencing shall not exceed 6 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining walls fora total of 10 feet." B. Paragraph D of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: • "The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A," dated January 5, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions, and with the site plan on file marked MODIFIED Exhibit "A" dated February 7, 2003." Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the modification subject to the following condition: A. The trees located immediately adjacent to the tennis court on the subject property, which were required to be planted by Resolution No. 99-10, shall be at all times trimmed so as not to block the ocean view and vistas from the walking path along Crest Road West. Section 7. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 99-10 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF MARCH 2003. EVIE HANI1INS, CHAIRWOMAN • ATTEST: MARILYN K , DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 593MOD. (NAGELHOUT). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 18, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairwoman Hankins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1 • `1••, •••• „,••„;.;,-1•e: : • , • :1-s„; • Iv • • .:4-;$ •;-(*i•*$' - • :„10. !':•„11. , ');•• \;',••• • ;;,-;.;• 4••• r DATE: TO: FROM: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MARCH 18, 2003 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 593 MODIFICATION 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) RA-S-2, 2.624 ACRES MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT FEBRUARY 8, 2003 Request for modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court. The applicant is seeking modification to a previously approved condition of approval regarding the height of the fence surrounding the tennis court at an existing single-family residence at 16 Crest Road West. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at the February 18, 2003 hearing, directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval regarding the above request in Zoning Case No. 593 Modification to allow a 6-foot high fence rather than the previously approved 4-foot high fence on top of the 4-foot retaining wall, for a total height of 10 feet. The vote was unanimous. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2003-06, which is attached, approving Zoning Case No. 593 Modification. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 593MOD. (NAGELHOUT). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, requesting a modification to a condition imposed for a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court. B. On March 16, 1999 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-10 allowing the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court. Condition "M" of the resolution requires that "tennis court fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the four -foot high retaining wall for a total of eight feet". C. The applicants request modification to allow the construction of a six-foot high fence surrounding the tennis court, instead of the four -foot fence approved previously, for a total height of ten feet. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a duly noticed public hearing on February 18, 2003, at which time information was presented indicating the necessity for the modification. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project to modify Zoning Case No. 593 qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.42.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to make certain findings to lawfully grant a request for a Conditional Use Permit. When the Planning Commission previously granted Conditional Use Permit the required findings were set forth in Section 6 of Resolution No. 99-10. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the findings contained in that prior resolution are applicable to and can be made again in their entirety as the findings for the project as modified and are, accordingly, incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 99-10, dated March 16, 1999 as follows: • • A. Paragraph "M" of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Tennis court fencing shall not exceed 6 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining walls for a total of 10 feet." B. Paragraph D of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A," dated January 5, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions, and with the site plan on file marked MODIFIED Exhibit "A" dated February 7, 2003." Section 6. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 99-10 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF MARCH 2003. EVIE HANKINS, CHAIRWOMAN Ai !'EST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION . NO. 99-10 AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 593MOD. (NAGELHOUT). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 18, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE: TO: • • City 0/R/iL4 FEBRUARY 18, 2003 7A INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COM IVHSSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 593 MODIFICATION SITE LOCATION: 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 2.624 ACRES APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 8, 2003 REOUEST Request for modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court. The applicant is seeking modification to a previously approved condition of approval regarding the height of the fence surrounding the tennis court at an existing single-family residence at 16 Crest Road West. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-10 on March 16, 1999 allowing the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court on subject property. Condition "M" of the resolution of approval requires that "tennis court fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining walls for a total of 8 feet". 2. The applicants have submitted a letter, attached, requesting a modification to the previous approval to allow a 10-foot perimeter tennis court fence. The proposed fence would be 6 feet above the 4-foot retaining wall for a total of 10 feet. 3. In the letter, the applicants state that an 8-foot fence is not sufficient to keep the tennis balls from leaving the court during play. Their contractor, whose business is constructing tennis courts, believes that the standard tennis court fencing is 10- 12 feet. The applicants also state that the tennis court is well screened from view from Crest Road, and from their neighbor to the east. 4. The property borders the School District's property to the southwest and Rancho Palos Verdes to the south. The properties to the south are located up -slope from subject property. The Rolling Hills Community Association allows maximum of 10 feet fencing for tennis courts. ZONING CASE NO. 593 Mod. PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 5.. The tennis court surface and retaining wall have been completed and the landscaping is in place. In December, staff observed the higher than approved posts for the fence and requested that construction of the fence cease. 6. The original approval was for a 7,000 square foot tennis court, which required 360 cubic yards of cut soil and 360 cubic yards of fill soil and involved 9,120 square feet of graded area, (10,000 sq.ft. maximum). 7. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,229 square feet or 38.6% (40% maximum). 8. The 10,422 square foot residential building pad coverage is 45.7% and the 10,547 square foot tennis court pad coverage is 66.4%. Total building pad coverage is 52.6%. 9. The structural lot coverage is 17,518 square feet or 19.75% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage is 29,046 square feet or 32.75% (35% permitted). 10. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the project southeast of the building pad. Access to the stable is available from Crest Road West along the eastern side yard easement. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed request and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 593 Mod. PAGE 2 • • ZONING CASE NO. 593 Modification SPORTS COURT REQUEST EXISTING AS APPROVED RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: House and Tennis Court Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Residence 7,742 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required if size of Garage 1,600 sq.ft. structure increases by at least 1,000 Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing Tennis Court 7,000 sq.ft. the size of the structure by more than Service yard 100 sq.ft. 25% in a 36-month period). Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 17,518 sq.ft. GRADING, 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded are where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE~ (Guideline maximum of 30%) TENNIS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SO.FT. & 550 SO.FT. CORRAL) 38.6% 19.75% 32.75% 45.7% 66.4% 52.6% 450 sq.ft. stable 550 sq.ft. corral STABLE ACCESS Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West at eastern easement ROADWAY ACCESS No change VIEWS Planning Commission reviewed PLANTS AND.ANIMAL$ Planning Commission reviewed ZONING CASE NO. 593 Mod. PAGE 3 IRECREATIONAL GAME COURTS II AS APPROVED Proposed 450 sq.ft. stable and 550 sq.ft. corral a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall pot exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g• Requires balanced cut and fill pot to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area ma exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening n t interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 593 Mod. PAGE 4 Not in front yard Not within 50 feet from any paved road or street easement The court is inset 4 feet below grade. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Located on a gently sloped area of the lot. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill Graded area is 9,120 sq.ft. Required condition Required condition Required condition Required condition Required condition Required condition • • Planning Commission No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 12, 2003 Dear Members: Robert & Julie Nagelhout 16 Crest Road W Rolling Hills, CA 90274 We are requesting a minor modification to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit which approved the building of a tennis court on the west side of our property. Specifically we are requesting that the height of the eight (8) foot barrier surrounding the tennis court be increased by two (2) feet to a total of ten (10) feet. The current permit calls for an eight (8) foot barrier (consisting of four (4) feet of retaining wall below ground level and four (4) feet of fence above ground level). Our request would modify this to having a ten (10) foot barrier consisting of four (4) feet of retaining wall below ground level and six (6) feet of fence above ground level. The reason for this request is that the eight (8) foot barrier called for in the original permit is insufficient for practical use of the tennis court. Essentially, this height is not sufficient to keep the tennis balls from leaving the court during play. This is confirmed from our own experience and from the expertise of Richard Zaino (our tennis court contractor). He has been building tennis courts for several decades and is unaware of any courts where the fence has been built to be less than 10 feet in height (the standard for residential courts according to Mr. Zaino is 10' — 12' in height). The tennis court development is almost complete but we have halted construction until the planning commission rules on our request. The pictures included with our request show the fence posts above the retaining wall. They are currently set at 6 (six) feet because we failed to inform Mr. Zaino of the four (4) foot restriction. Without specific instructions he presumed that we were interested in a standard six (6) foot fence. There was no intent on our part to deviate from the plan without approval from the planning commission. In fact, several years ago when we discovered the height issue we discussed it with Craig Nealis but he was unwilling to allow a variance from the permit without approval from the planning commission. So much time had elapsed from the time we spoke with Craig before we began construction on the court that we forgot to inform Mr. Zaino, and to re -address the issue with the planning commission. The variance was discovered when Yolanta Schwartz inspected the tennis court site. The upside of the 6' posts is that we are able to clearly show the impact of the two (2) foot variance in the fence. We have taped off the posts at the four (4) foot level (the top of the tape is 4') so that the impact of the variance can be easily visualized. We plan to include pictures with our modification request, and if anyone is interested in seeing it for themselves we have left the tape on the fence so that the difference between the 4' and 6' height can be observed. • • We understand that it is the desire of the planning commission to minimize the exposure of sport courts in the city so that we can preserve and maintain a natural and rural atmosphere. We believe that our request supports this and should be approved by the planning commission for the following reasons: 1. Regardless of the height at 4' or 6' the landscaping surrounding our property is going to completely disguise the tennis court. We have planted trees that will grow well above 30' in height all around the west side of our property where the tennis court resides. This includes the portion on Crest Road in the easement for which we have a previously approved permit from the community to plant trees. 2. The tennis court surface is 35' below Crest Road making it impossible to see the court at this time except for individuals walking on the trail in the direct proximity around the court. And as previously mentioned, the exposure from the trail will also be eliminated once the trees grow a few more feet. We believe the attached pictures demonstrate this. 3. This side of our property does not border any homes in Rolling Hills. It borders either Rancho Palos Verdes, or the Rancho Del Mar school property, which means that there is no impact on any neighbors in Rolling Hills. We thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and hope you will look favorably upon our request. We look forward to meeting with you to answer any questions you may have. Sineer�ly, Robert & Julie Nagelhout Proposed Height Approved Height 16 Crest Road West 1230• — i // � � � �� + *20/ ji � SIN volk 5 1235 ( + �h *N.,.\ ..'. teas 1 \\NN\ - \ \\ N N 4—r,t, • \ \\NN NN k.„.\\\,\ \\\N + �h \\\ ez,�` \\ \ 0 1200 \. cb or N38'3r15`v4 339.1 i• to