561, Construct a practice wall with, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
gz/
When recorded mail to:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
Space above for Recorder's use
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation).
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGEL .FS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE NO. 561
) §§
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE •
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT II
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
14 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 56-A-RH)
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 561
SITE PLAN REVIEW O
VARIANCE •
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT •
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Print Print
Owner Owner
�oht1 K . Marc. Leod
Namei `""�SignatureName
Signature__ _ o�
Address
vdlr, `_. MGat-Lecar4
Address __SC.vw_
City/State RolUr l#; (15_4 C1}- 6192,14E City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On_a:_ CA % before me, K1 i f 1 S 4 A meia I`e `Q- a Notary Public
personally appeared____aaLtLikL _ d 4____k__ 1 h.tk jek eo O
personally known to me ( ) to be the person(s) whose name(s),/are subscribed
to. the within instrument and acknowledged to me that,(e/Oe/they executed the same in lN's/I»r/their authorized capacity(ies) and
that by //r/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instr ment.
HAMZA L AMMO
CommIsbn 0107/660
NotoN Pitrio -!,-CcCoute
My Comm. Expires May 1220e0
Witness by hand and official seal.
Abe) an#1,44j"—
Signat a of Notary Public
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
98 1936275
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
ENCROACHMENT OF A SPORTS COURT PRACTICE • WALL INTO
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT A ' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 561.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
with respect to real property located at 14 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot
56-A-RH) requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard
setback for the construction of a sports court practice wall. At the same time, other
applications were duly filed requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into
the side yard setback to permit a previously constructed illegal sports court and
requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the same previously constructed illegal
sports court at an existing single family residence.
Section 2. In July, 1996, the Community Association reported that concrete
was being poured at the subject property for a sports court and staff inspected the
court. On August 1, 1996, staff informed the Macleods in writing of the need to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit. After that time, discussions took place between
the applicants and City staff regarding the case and the specific application
requirements. Applications were received on April 29, 1997.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on June 17, 1997, July 15, 1997, and August 19,
1997, and at a field trip visit on June 30, 1997. The applicant was notified of the
public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said
proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal. Concerns expressed by Commissioners and the applicants focused on the
legality of a 288 square foot guest house structure existing before City incorporation,
the term "illegal" in connection with the previously constructed sports court, the
definition of a "recreational game court" versus a "patio area," and advice that may
have been given to the applicants by a local architect and a Community Association
employee regarding required City applications. The Commission determined that
the guest house structure is a previously existing nonconforming use and approved,
by way of Resolution No. 97-21, the requests for a Variance and a Conditional Use
Permit to permit the encroachment into the side yard setback for the previously
constructed sports court.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
PAGE 1
• •
Section 4. • On May 27, 1997, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the
project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared and was circulated to the
applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA
Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend
approval of the Negative Declaration was published on May 29, 1997. Copies of the
Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies.
No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. The Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment and adopted a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the
RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit
an encroachment into the side yard setback to permit the construction of a 32 foot
long, eight foot high sports court practice wall at the north side of the sports court
that will encroach a maximum of six (6) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard
setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is not
necessary because the practice wall will be large and solid which the Commission
finds is not customary on properties in the vicinity so that the proposed practice
wall is not appropriate for the property.
B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question because a guest house and sports
court already encroach into the north side yard setback and additional
encroachments would exacerbate the amount of structures within setback areas.
C. The granting of the Variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
zone in which the property is located because the proposed project does not
minimize structural coverage on the pad and leaves little open space between
property lines. The encroachment also makes the proposed sports court practice
wall addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the
existing development pattern of the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
PAGE 2
• •
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a sports
court practice wall that will encroach into the side yard setback in Zoning Case No.
561.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON TH
ATTEST:
6THD
TEMBER, 1997.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
.
m(2uRT, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-22 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SPORTS
COURT PRACTICE WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 561.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September
16, 1997, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
PAGE 3
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
X /Q/T';4 "
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT AND GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SAME PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT TO REMAIN AT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 561.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod with
respect to real property located at 14 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 56-A-
RH) requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback to
permit a previously constructed illegal sports court and requesting a Conditional
Use Permit for the same previously constructed illegal sports court to remain at an
existing single family residence. At the same time, another application was duly
filed requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback for
the construction of a sports court practice wall.
Section 2. In July, 1996, the Community Association reported that concrete
was being poured at the subject property for a sports court and staff inspected the
court. On August 1, 1996, staff informed the Macleods in writing of the need to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit. After that time, discussions took place between
the applicants and City staff regarding the case and the specific application
requirements. Applications were received on April 29, 1997.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on June 17, 1997, July 15, 1997, and August 19,
1997, and at a field trip visit on June 30, 1997. The applicant was notified of the
public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said
proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having .reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal. Concerns expressed by Commissioners and the applicants focused on the
legality of a 288 square foot guest house structure existing before City incorporation,
the term "illegal" in connection with the previously constructed sports court, the
definition of a "recreational game court" versus a "patio area," and advice that may
have been given to the applicants by a local architect and a Community Association
employee regarding required City applications. , The Commission determined that
the guest house structure is a previously existing nonconforming use and denied, by
way of Resolution No. 97-22, a request for a Variance to permit an encroachment
into the side yard setback for the construction of a sports court practice wall.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE1
9@ 1936275
•
Section 4. On May 27, 1997, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the
project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared and was circulated to the
applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA
Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend
approval of the Negative Declaration was published on May 29, 1997. Copies of the
Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies.
No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. The Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment and adopted a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the
RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit
an encroachment into the side yard setback to permit a previously constructed
illegal sports court that encroaches a maximum of four (4) feet into the twenty (20)
foot side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the
other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape
and the existing sports court pad is located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot
and away from the street.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because
there is a nearby tennis court, there was minimum grading to create the building
pad on this irregular shaped lot, and there will not be any greater incursion into the
side yard than what already exists on other properties in the same vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 561 to permit an encroachment
into the side yard setback to permit a previously constructed illegal sports court that
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE 2
98 1936275
•
will encroach a maximum of four (4) feet into the side yard setback, as indicated on
the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this
Resolution.
Section 7. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
allows for the construction of a sports court provided a Conditional Use Permit for
such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to
the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a previously constructed 2,170 square
foot sports court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court would be
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is
consistent with similar recreational uses in the community and the court is located
in an area of the property where such use will be the least intrusive to surrounding
properties.
B. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with
the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the
sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the
community and is located on a 1.67 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size,
shape and topography to accommodate such use.
C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the
sports court will not impact the view or the privacy of neighbors. The hard -surfaced
area required a minimum amount of grading and will be screened by landscaping.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 561
for a previously constructed 2,170 square foot sports court, as shown on the
Development Plan dated April 29, 1997 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 9.
Section 9. The Variance to permit a sports court to encroach 4 feet into the
side yard setback approved in Section 6 and the Conditional Use Permit for a
previously constructed of a 2,170 square foot sports court approved in Section 8 as
indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A dated April 29, 1997, is subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall expire
within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section
17.38.070(A) and Section 17.42.070(A).
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE 3
98 1936275
•
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional
Use Permit approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be
suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do
so for a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated April 29, 1997, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral
with vehicular access thereto.
F. The sports court shall not be located in the front yard.
G. The sports court shall not be located within 50 feet of any paved road or
street easements.
H. Any retaining walls for the sports court shall not exceed 4 feet in height
nor be exposed to the exterior.
I. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,017 square feet or 13.3% and
total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 12,300 square feet or
23.3%.
J. The sports court shall not be located on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the
sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses.
K. Balanced cut and fill for the sports court shall not exceed 750 cubic
yards.
L. The graded area for the sports court shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
M. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible. • .
N. Additional landscape screening shall be planted to obscure the court at
the northern portion of the sports court.
O. The sports court shall be screened on all four sides.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE4
98 1936275
P. Any screening fences for the sports court shall be landscaped and shall
not exceed 8 feet in height.
Q. Landscape screening for the sports court shall be maintained so as not
to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the court.
R. Lighting for the sports court shall not be permitted.
S. Noise from the hard -surfaced area use shall not create a nuisance to
owners of surrounding properties.
T. Review and approval of a site drainage plan by the City Engineer shall
be obtained for the sports court.
U. A plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department
staff for their review prior to the submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check.
V. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the
drainage plan.
W. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for site drainage plan review must conform to the development
plan described at the beginning of this section (Section 9).
X. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of these Variance and Conditional Use Permit approvals pursuant to Sections
17.38.060 and 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
Y. All conditions of these Variance Conditional Use Permit approvals
must be complied with prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of
Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON T E 16T /DAB' OI SEPTEMBER, 1997.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE 5
9@ 1936275
410
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-21 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT AND GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SAME PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT TO REMAIN AT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 561.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on September 16, 1997 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSTAIN: None .
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
�)-
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE6
90 19362'75