201, Construction of a tennis court, Resolutions & Approval Conditions41)
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Errol Gordon
Lot 52-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 201
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Errol Gordon, Lot 52-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a conditional use permit under ARTICLE III, Section 3.07,
Side Yard Requirements and Section 3.08, Rear Yard Requirements,
Ordinance No. 33, and under Section 3.01 (D), Paragraph 3 (a) of
Ordinance No. 150, came on for hearing on the 20th day of September,
1977 in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portu-
guese 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 re-
quired by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Errol Gordon, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 52-EF, located
at 15 Eastfield Drive, 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 favor of or in opposition
to the request, and that Mrs. Virginia Leeuwenburgh, 12 Eastfield Drive
appeared at the meeting. Mrs. Leeuwenburgh stated that there are three
tennis courts on properties directly across from her home, and although
not all properties in the Eastfield area can accommodate tennis courts,
the residents in that area are expected to tolerate noise from the
tennis courts on properties which can accommodate them.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
conditional use permit for construction of a tennis court which would
encroach into the side and rear yards of his property, and that 22%
of the net lot area would be covered if the request was granted. The
Commission finds further that there has been good use of the available
room for development, and there are already several tennis courts in
the vicinity of the subject property. The Commission finds that a
conditional use permit should be granted in order to preserve sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other property 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. Errol Gordon. Lot 52-EF, 15 Eastfield
Drive under Article III, Section 3.07 and 3.08, and Under Section
3.01 (D), Paragraph 3 (a) of Ordinance No. 150 for construction of a
tennis court in the side and rear yards subject to the following
conditions: 1) That the domensions of net lot coverage be verified by
the engineer and sent to the Chairman of the Planning Commission;
2) That placement of the proposed court be located by a survey and the
location checked prior to pouring the court; 3) That the height of the
fence be limited to eight feet; 4) That the Landscape Committee review
and approve the landscaping plan; and 5) That provisions be shown on
the plan for a gravel area on Eastfield Drive, north of the driveway,
for parking, and a large yucca in that area be removed; and it is,
therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission
retary, Planni ; Commission