Loading...
407, Construct a tennis court in th, Staff ReportsSTAFF REPORT DATE: January 11, 1990 TO: PUNNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZCSING CASE NO. 407; 39 Crest Road East, Lot 240B-2-MS; Owner: Yu -Ping Liu The City has been contacted by the applicant indicating his request to withdraw his application for the proposed tennis court located at the above -stated property. A written statement is forthcoming and will be submitted for the Commission to receive and acquiesce. Staff would recommend that the Commission acknowledge and accept the withdrawal of application. zc407wit ye TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER/PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: STAFF REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1989 MEETING 1. Zonina Case Numbers 404 and 407: Zoning Case No. 404 is an application for conditional use permits for a tennis court and a pool house. zoning Case No. 407 is an application for a conditional use permit for a tennis court. This• . report will focus upon the tennis court proposals The Planning Commission is . reminded that before, can .. grant of Meny` a conditional use permit, it must make a specificfinding' thata°'- arantina or denying of such conditional use permit would be consistent or inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of thg Zonina Ordinance and General Plan: and. be desireabie to the public convenience and welfare. Unlike permitted primary and accessory uses and.structures, conditional use is not allowed as a matter of right in a zoning district. Permitted uses and stucturesare allowedin accordance,rith the standards contained in the Zoning'Ordinance. Conditional Uses" -and structures are those that because of their nature or concomitants - (size, visibility, grading required, development congestion, setbacks from property lines, direct/indirect noise production, effect:4poW.,.- property values, direct/indirect native vegetation destruction`s 1. others) militate against their existence on every property in``e zoning district. And, conditional_ uses and structures are those that are difficult to specify adequate standards, restrictions or conditions in advance, with the exception of certain minimum requirements as prerequisites for application consideration. As regards tennis courts, in addition to the evaluation as to the compliance with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements and those issues set forth parathetically in` the above paragraph, it is recommended that the Planning Commission additionally require tennis courts to conform to the same minimum setback requirements as those required for a residential building structure. The rationale for this recommendation is that it is incongruous to allow a -conditionally permitted structure, which is typically 1 1/2 to 2.times larger, in size, than the primary permitted structure (residential building), to be located in a setback area where a residence is not permitted. This especially incongruous when one considers that the purpose for minimum setbacks is assure open space between structures, in relationship to other propoerties. Further, stables and barns are required to be a minimum of 25 feet from the any property line. PLANNING COMMISSION: NOVEMBER 14, 1989 PAGE TWO 1. Zonina Case Numbers 404 and 407 (con'tt: In the case of Zoning Case No. 404, the following are suggested findings, if the Commission determines it is appropriate to deny the tennis court application: - The subject parcel is a relatively flat parcel which is located at a point where improvements constructed on the property would be visible to all vehicular, equestrian and pedestrian traffic ingressing and egressing the Morgan Lane area; and`the properties in the surrounding. area. • - The staking of -the property discloses that tie proposed and existing structures would cover the proportion of the the allowable buildable area of the lot, leaving little room for open space areas and no natural vegetation. The proposed structures would create a - densely developed lot, which would have reduced open space areas and would be devoid of natural and/or mature vegetation that would preserve and enhance the rural atmosphere called for in the General Plan. - The tennis court and its attendant fencing would highly visible to surrounding properties; and, as such, would not be harmony with the rural atmosphere of the surrounding area and the community. -The proposal is not consistent or compatible with the objectives of the General Plan, for reasons set forth above. In the case of Zonina Case No. 407, upon a closer reading of the Zoning Ordinance, the locating of any non-exempt structures or conditionally permitted structures in the rear yard setback (minimum of 50 feet from rear property line) is not allowable. The only buildings that are permitted to be located in the rear yard setback are accessory buildings, i.e., stables, barns. Structures that are permitted to located in the rear setback are boundary fences (wooden three -rail). All other structures would require the obtaining of a variance, before their location would be permitted, in the rear yard. If the applicant wishes to proceed with a variance, this matter would have to be renoticed for new public hearings). If the applicant does not wish to proceed with a variance, the Commission has no alternative but to deny the application, for lack of compliance with requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Zonina Case No. 409: If the Commission intends to grant the requested conditional use permit for a guest house, it should do so, with a special condition for temporary continuous occupancy to be reviewed annually, by the Commission, to determine the appropriateness of the special continuous occupancy condition. STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 9, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 407; Request for Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court; and Request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of the proposed tennis court for property located at 39 Crest Road West, Lot 240 B-2-MS; owner: Yu Ping Liu The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of October 17, 1989, continued the hearing so as to place the matter before a full attendance of the Commission. Prior to this action, the Commission heard additional testimony from the applicants and surrounding property owners. At the last meeting, Staff cited the paramount issue of land use compatibility that the Commission must evaluate. Staff identified potential impacts on drainage, noise, visibility, and separation of structures. The public record indicated three letters of opposition from abutting property owners. DISCUSSION ON RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission must closely examine the proposal for land use and development compatibility, and evaluate potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties. The Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the Zoning Ordinance are met in order to permit the Conditional Use Permit and approve Site Plan Review. Section 17 before an Permit, it consistent in that surrounding detrimental If the shall be .32.060 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that approval be given to any application for a Conditional Use must be shown that the granting of such permit would be with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposal would be compatible with the site and properties. Further, the grant of permit would not be to the public health, safety, and welfare. approval is to be granted, additional conditions as follows incorporated to insure proper development: 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, a final grading plan shall be approved. 2. Landscaping, irrigation plans, and bonding are required of the applicant to be submitted to the City prior to issuance of building permit. • • 3. The proposed tennis court shall be located at a distance of 35 feet (typical side yard setback) from the mutual property line between the subject site and the northerly abutting property. 4. The proposed tennis court shall not encroach into any required side yard setback. Should the Commission determine that the findings are in a negative context and that the project cannot be modified to meet the requirements, it would constitute a disapproval of the request. The Commission must address the following criteria and insure that the proposed development complies with all applicable requirements and standards of the Zoning Ordinance before a decision of approval or disapproval is determined. 1. Is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses; 2. Preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 3. Follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading; extensive grading and recontouring of existing terrain to maximize buildable area shall not be approved. Graded slopes shall be rounded and contoured so as to blend with existing terrain. Grading shall not modify existing drainage or re -direct drainage flow unless into an existing drainage course. 4. Preserves surrounding native vegetation and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community Landscaping should provide a buffer and transition zone between private and public areas. 5. Substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements shall be regarded as maximums and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted should depend upon the existing buildable area of the lot. 6. Is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. Setbacks shall be regarded as minimums and more restrictive setbacks shall be imposed where necessary to assure proportionality and openness. 7. Is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. 8. Conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF REPORT DATE: October 11, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 407; Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court; Request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of the proposed tennis court with the site located at 39 Crest Road West, Lot 240B-2-MS; Owner: Yu Ping Liu DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of September 19, 1989, continued the above stated application to a scheduled field trip so as to inspect the site and surrounding properties. A number of issues were raised at the prior meeting as follows: 1. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed a prior Zoning Case (ZC355) for a tennis court on the subject property. In May 1988, the Council, acting as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, overturned the approval action of the Commission. The present application before the Commission calls for a revised location from the previous submittal. 2. Staff raised issues of potential noise impacts. Staff noted the separation of the surrounding residences and a proposed new stable. closest residence to the court would 75 feet inspection of the site and surrounding properties, an existing grade differential between the subject and westerly properties. The applicant proposes a in mitigating the visual concern. , visual, and drainage proposed court from It was noted that the to the north. Upon Staff would again note site and the northerly sunken court to assist 3. Three (3) letters of opposition from abutting property owners were submitted for the Commission's review. 4. If the Commission is to approve the applicant's request, it will be required of the applicant to submit detailed grading and landscaping plans for the City's review prior to the issuance of permits. • • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposal for development compatibility, and evaluate potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties. The Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the zoning ordinance are met in order to permit the conditional use permit and approve site plan review. Attachment: Staff Report, 9/19/89 ZC407#2 DATE: September 7, 1989 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: PRIOR CITY ACTIONS: PROPERTY SIZE/ CONFIGURATION: PRESENT DEVELOPMENT: STAFF REPORT Zoning Case 407 39 Crest Road West RAS-2 Yu Ping Liu Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineers 9/9/89 Zoning Case 355, Planning Commission approved; Appealed to Council and Commission action overturned. 2.00 acres gross, irregular shape Single family residence with pool and stable % Structure coverage: 10.36% % Flatwork coverage: 9.51% Total: 19.87% REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court; Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of the proposed tennis court. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning) and Ordinance 221 (Site Plan Review), Staff would present the following issues: 1. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed a prior Zoning Case No. 355, which was also a request for a tennis court on the subject property. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of February 16, 1988, approved the Conditional Use Permit request for the tennis court on a 3-2 vote. The matter was appealed and presented to the City Council. The Council, acting as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, overturned the approval action of the Commission. Correspondingly, the Council adopted a Resolution denying the conditional use permit. 2. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the location of the proposed 7,000 square foot court. Current plans again show a rear yard location, but now having the length of the court with an east -west orientation. An existing stable will be removed and replaced with a new 648 square foot stable. The applicant must submit plans for this structure. Proposed total lot coverage will be 28.46% (18.95% structure, 9.51% flatwork). 3. Tennis courts and stables provide for types of active residential uses which may generate noise and visual impacts. Structure separation and landscape screening techniques should be considered. The vicinity map shows separation of the tennis court to the neighbors' residences. The northerly residence would be 75 feet from the court, and the distance from the easterly residence would be increased to 190 feet with the reorientation of the court from the previous plan. A distance of 115 feet is indicated for the separation from the westerly residence. For the Commission's information, the contour lines show that the court site is on higher ground than the northerly residence, but the court is proposed to be sunken. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposal for development compatibility, and evaluate potential impacts to the site and surrounding property. The Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the zoning ordinance are met in order to permit the conditional use permit and approve site plan review.