Loading...
404, Construct a tennis court, Staff Reports• • 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 o a conditional use permit, it must mike a specific finding that arantina or denying of such conditional use permit would be consistent or inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zonina ordinance and General Plan; and. be desireabie to the public convenience and welfare. Unlike permitted primary and accessory uses and structures, a conditional use is not allowed as a matter of right in a zoning district. Permitted uses and stuctures are allowed in accordance,With 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 upon property values, direct/indirect native vegetation destruction and others) militate against their existence on every property in a 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 Nbexs 404 and 407 (con't) : In the case of Zoning Case No. 40A, 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 the 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 inthe 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 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 9, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ZONING CASE NO. 404; Request for Conditonal Use Permit for a tennis court and pool house; request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of the proposed tennis court and pool house with the site located at 2 Morgan Lane, Lot 170-8-MS; Owner: Michael Gray. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of October 17, 1989, continued the above -stated application to a scheduled field trip so as to reinspect the site and surrounding properties. At the last meeting, Staff requested that applicant be required to submit a new detailed grading, showing the property's current condition and siting existing/proposed improvements. Further, Staff cited the paramount issue of land use compatibility that the Commission must evaluate. Staff identified potential impacts on drainage, noise, visibility (lack of mature vegetation, view from surrounding sites), and separation of structures. 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 .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. If the approval is to be granted, additional conditions as follows shall be 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 not encroach into any required side yard setback. 4. The proposed pool house shall not include kitchen facilities, be rented, nor become a second dwelling unit. s • 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 C.U.P. 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 for site plan review. 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 of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. 8. ZC404#4 Conforms with the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act. and safety California STAFF REPORT DATE: September 6, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 404; Request for Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court and pool house; Request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of proposed tennis court and pool house with the site located at 2 Morgan Lane, Lot 170-8-MS; Owner:Michael Gray DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of August 15, 1989, continued the above stated matter to a scheduled field trip on September 16, 1989 so as to inspect the property under application. At the first meeting, Staff noted concerns regarding the proposed locations of the tennis court, pool house, and future stable. Staff pointed out potential noise and aesthetic impacts to the neighboring property, equestrian trail, and roadway. Proposed and existing development are within total lot coverage limits. The applicant must verify that any wall structures will be outside the required front yard setback. For the Commission's information, Staff again notes that a prior City action in the immediate area has denied a requested tennis court. Also, the applicant has presented the pool house elevations for approval to the Architectural Committee of the Community Association at their meeting of March 21, 1989. 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 Planning Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the zoning ordinance are met in order to permit the conditional use permit and approval of site plan review. Attachment: Staff Report, 8/15/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: PRIOR CITY ACTIONS: PROPERTY SIZE/ CONFIGURATION: PRESENT DEVELOPMENT: % Structure coverage: % flatwork coverage: 0% Total: 5.79% August 15, 1989 STAFF REPORT Zoning Case 404 2 Morgan Lane; Lot 170-8-MS RAS-2 Michael Gray Same 8/5/89 2.55 acres gross; irregular shape Single family residence under construction; 5.79% REQUEST: Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of a tennis court and pool house; Conditional Use Permit for court and pool house. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES proposed a tennis In reviewing the applicant's request under Ordinance 221 (Site Plan Review) and Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would identify the following issues: 1. The site was essentially cleared for the new residence under construction and future assessory structures/uses. The proposed 7,200 square foot tennis court was sited to the rear of the property, however, is in proximity (35 feet) to an equestrian trail. Without buffering/screening, tennis courts are a type of active residential use which could generate audible and visual impacts. The indicated future stable would also fall in this category. Furthermore, staff would question the cluster situation of the future stable and tennis court. The closeness of these uses would not seem appropriate. The applicant must also address the earth cut/fill inbalance, since soil cannot be exported. 2. The proposed 442 square foot pool house is located within 55 feet of the side property line, and over 75 feet to the front property line. Adequate landscaping would be required to screen the structure from abutting properties and the roadway. Building elevations should reviewed for visual impact. Proposed development will increase the total percentage lot coverage to 25.76% (increase 9.86% structure, 10.1% flatwork). 3. Prior City action in the vicinity has denied a requested tennis court. 4. The requested project has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.), and determined to be categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the project impacts to the property's open space, abutting properties, and proximate equestrian trail, with the applicant submitting building elevations of the pool house for review.