165, Construct pool & tennis court., Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mrs. Adrienne Burke
Lot 70-1-MS
ZONING CASE NO. 165 & 166
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mrs. Adrienne Burke, Lot 70-1-MS,
Miscellaneous Tract, for conditional use permits under Section 3.01,
Paragraph 3 (c) of Ordinance No. 112 for construction of a tennis
court and swimming pool as part of the total development of property
at 33 Crest Road East came on for hearing on the 19th day of October,.
1976 in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portu-
guese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, and at the request of the
applicant, iaere:&heard together. Mr. Dan Burke, representing the
applicant, having requested and received permission to submit new
applications following denial of requests for conditional use permits
for said improvements on September 21, 1976, and having submitted new
drawings in support of the applications, the Planning Commission,
being advised, now makes its Findings and Report as required by the
Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mrs. Adrienne Burke,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 70-1-MS,
Miscellaneous Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California,
and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said applications
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 communication, written or oral, had been received in favor of
the request, and that Mr. and Mrs. Cosimo Occhipinti and Mr. and Mrs.
Thomas Wachtell appeared at the hearings to express concerns regarding
the proposed development of the property, specifically possible obstruc-
tion of the ocean view from the Occhipinti property at 34 Crest Road
East and proximity of the tennis court to the Wachtell residence at
35 Crest Road East.
• •
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant requests conditional
use permits for construction of a tennis court and swimming pool on
the property, and has submitted computations which indicate that
20.96% of the total lot area as defined in Ordinance No. 137 would be
covered by construction and 34.48% would be covered by construction
plus other improvements as defined in the ordinance which requires that
construction not exceed 25% of total lot area, and construction plus
other improvements not exceed 50% of total lot area, as defined in the
ordinance. The Commission finds further that Mr. Michael Roberts,
attorney for Mrs. Burke, has stated that the proposed development of
the property would be compatible with both larger and smaller lots in
the area, that computation of percentage of lot coverage meets the
requirements of Ordinance No. 137, and that since the plan submitted
in support of the requests satisfies both the techinical and esthetic
requirements, to deny the applications for conditional use permits
would violate the ordinance unless the Commission findS.th.at the
applicant has failed to meet the standards necessary to obtain a
conditional use permit.
III.
The Commission finds, further, that other residents of
Rolling Hills, although not required to be notified of the request
by Mrs. Burke, had appeared at the hearing to state their opposition
to tennis courts in general, as not in keeping with the rural atmosphere
of Rolling Hills, and because the tennis court would be visible from
other properties not immediately adjacent to the Burke property, they
requested that the Planning Commission consider the impact on the total
community, as well as on residents in the immediate area of the property.
IV.
The Commission finds that conditional use permits should not
be granted on the basis that the development would detract from sur-
rounding properties; because of concerns expressed by residents in
the area; because of view obstruction from Southfield Drive northbound
which would result from construction of a tennis court, and because
the over all development of the property as proposed is not in keeping
with the rural atmosphere of Rolling Hills.
• •
V.
From the foregoing it is concluded that conditional use
permits for construction of a swimming pool and tennis court as
required by Section 3.01, Paragraph 3 (c) of Ordinance No. 112 on
Lot 70-1-MS, 33 Crest Road East, should not be granted to Mrs. -Adrienne
Burke as requested at meetings of the Planning Commission on September 21
and October 19, 1976, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
Chairman, Planning Commission
Secretary, Planning Commission