323, Construct a tennis court, Staff ReportsItem 3, City Council
•ebruary 24, 1986
TO: HonorableMayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 323, C.U.P. - Tennis Court
(Lupo - 4 Georgeff Road)
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lupo, Lot 192B-1-MS, 4 Georgeff Road,
submitted for consideration a Conditional Use Permit application
for the construction of a tennis court (Zoning Case No. 323).
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 19, 1985, to receive public comment pertaining to the
C.U.P. application. Coniiients were received from two residents.
Mrs. Ervin Heinrich, 12 Georgeff Road, expressed concern about the
level of noise likely to be generated as a result of locating the
tennis court (sunken style) in a canyon. She objected to the C.U.P.
application because of this concern. Mrs. Joan Saffo, 1 Crest Road
East, said she was concerned about construction of a tennis court in
a canyon, and whether there would be room for a stable to be built.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take a field
trip to the site. Also, it was suggested that a tennis court of simi-
lar design and location be visited (Delpit, 45 Saddleback Road). The
Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the December meet-
ing. They scheduled a field trip to review the site.
The continued public hearing was held on December 17, 1985.
At the hearing a new, revised site plan was submitted to replace the
sunken court design plan. The new court encroached upon a bridle trail
(non -easement) and the westerly side of the natural creekbed. Four (4)
residents submitted letters that expressed support of the C.U.P. ap-
plications. These letters, together with Mrs. Heinrich's and Mrs.
Saffo's concerns were entered into the record. The question regarding
the stable was answered by Mr. Lupo, who indicated that such a building
is located on the site.
Although the Commission indicated they preferred the original
sunken type court design, ;it cited Section 17.16.012(F-2), which pro-
hibits the construction of a tennis court on steep slopes, sides or
bottoms of canyons as the basis for denial of Zoning Case No. 323, a
C.U.P. for a tennis court. Mr. and Mrs. Lupo have appealed that de-
cision.
The City Council, acting as Board of Zoning Appeal, set the
matter of the appeal of Zoning Case No. 323 for public hearing to be
held on February 24, 1986. At the February 24 hearing the Board of
Zoning Appeal can consider only the plans and exhibits that the Plan-
ning Commission utilized to base its recommendation. n�
• •
Item 3, Page 2
The applicants have indicated that they have revised the
tennis court design, and request review by the Board of Appeal. If
there is newly submitted information to be considered, the Board of
Appeal can:
1. set another hearing to specifically consider the new
plans and/or information;
2. refer the new information and plans to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation; or
3. affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation for
denial.
Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeal hold
the noticed hearing. Upon closing the hearing, it is recommended
that the Board refer the revised plans for the tennis court to the
Planning Commission for their review, evaluation and recommendation.
The applicants have submitted a letter which requests said referral.
TB/jc
I�
FEB N' 1986
#4 Georgeff Rd.
Rolling Hills, Ca.
90274
February 20, 1986
City Council of Rolling Hills
#2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274
To the City Council Members,
We would like to submit a revised plan for our proposed
tennis court. We feel this may satisfy the concerns of the
Planning Commission. We ask that this be referred back to the
Planning Commission for their review and study. We thank you
in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ga,(,ug a,sti
Paul and Kay Lupo