Loading...
461, Permit for reconstruction of a, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•0 i� RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TEE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 IN ZONING CAGE NO. 461. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of a retaining wall into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court at a single family residence. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. • Section 2. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan for the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court. Section 4. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 O. RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 PAGE 2 Section 5. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A is required to permit the encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The sports court will not encroach into the twenty-five (25) side yard easement. A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the undulating topography of the lot. The only flat area available to site a sports court and accompanying retaining walls is on the proposed relatively flat slope within the side yard setback. 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 the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order to permit the reconstruction of the existing retaining walls. There will not be any greater incursion into the setback than presently exists. The Variance will also facilitate a reduction in the size and profile of the court. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. A sufficient distance remains between the sports court and the uses on the adjacent property. The sports court will be further screened by existing landscaping as the new court will be lowered and will not be visible from neighboring properties. Engineering of the retaining walls will lower their height to the code required four feet and will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet as indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A and dated February 1, 1992 subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. 414 RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 PAGE 3 Section 7. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing sports court that will be reduced to 2,550 square feet as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under certain conditions. Section S. 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, the area proposed for the court is already graded and used for such purpose, and the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. 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 comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5 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 and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The sports court will be screened by existing landscaping and the new court will be lowered and not be visible from neighboring properties. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court in accordance with the revised Development Plan attached hereto dated February 1, 1992 for a sports court in Zoning Case No. 461 subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. Section 10. The Variance to the side yard setback for the continued encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court as indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated February 1, 1992, and approved in Sections 6 and 9, are subject to the following conditions: or. RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 PAGE 4 A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, 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. A11 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan. on file marked REVISED Exhibit A dated February 1, 1992 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the court 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. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. G. All grading required for the reconstruction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards. H. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550 square feet in size. I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. K. The existing landscaping shall be maintained and shall not interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. L. Court lighting shall not be permitted. RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 PAGE 5 M. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. N. Noise from court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. O. A building permit shall be obtained for the retaining wall and sports court. P. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. R. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. T. All conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, except for Condition B, must be complied with prior to the 'issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. Section 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-27 is hereby repealed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1S OF FEBRUARY, 1992. gr- ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 2eit661.k„, (! DIANE SAWYER, DEPUCITY CLERK • RESOLUTION NO. lit7 PAGE 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-7 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on February 1, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Pankins, I,rv, Paine and Chairman Roberts NOES: Pone ABSENT: "lone ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost DEPUTY CITY CLEK O. •• • .B7 5 9 -'7.---.. .........';....____-.-"--- -...--.------...- -- - -•"" ‘ ‘ c - -:"; _.„„,----------- ,...----- * ....1 • ------7, -IH\ ..,„--- --- -_T-2--- - ----k--- ./..-- •-• ...---'"7.2-.---'----- ------ 1‘.. i . 1,1 ' \ c ..----- ,-- . -.. 2,— _ .,..____,- .--• 3.-- '''..-. Or--- k \ - ., _ --- ___ ‘,_ • -- • . r .75 r.Or ; \ \ . x N \ \ _--" 0 O o !_ - o t 0 spo-r. • L/e.r..an. —__.-----4---- - S.' ..,...-,._ __ -- - N.----/-::------Z I '----- \ -. , "N„,.. "--- .:. I:: u.• 3-- .......„.„... ‘, \ -. .....,.. -..,, __ ----_--_ - ' .. --.., „f.„:::......___________ •( .-------.... .... .."' \-.--------*--\--"---1------------------.„ ,,- -., , ---....._..„.....::>, ---......,.-----...,_ _...--„..._._...----......__ -.' ,------_:s-,Zz -- _,--- '------, :--'-‘--1 /- - •.. ... " ' 0 0 0 00c11111 R S 0/R'T /.1.4A/7777E-75 ; N I / SPORTS COURT d I I • e=7.." - ::cd — -11-67575-e--eraRT F-j- v) i-L.g.17 ';':1•{T. C,7r Pvvr?... Ars - , V -- / tf Il7 ; , \\--A \ 1 r---.--% . . , \\r---- • t t • 'L _ , 1 -..../ / „...._ ; ! N, / l''',....,....\., 1 1 " 1 C--- ---- - - - — --AA\\ - . ---"-7 '--- -------7--- -- -_1 t -.... ---__ / • I\NN z z ' / //2 - — sN, RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 1991, applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese. Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application fora Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council tookthe subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, March 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. On May 26, 1992, the City Council approved the applications in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 679. In 1993 the City was informed that the retaining wall and sports court that were reconstructed were not built according to plan. • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 PAGE 2 The approved plans show a 100 foot long 4-foot high retaining wall and a 2,550 square foot court, whereas, the "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long and the sports court is 5,760 square feet. On September 17, 1993, the City requested that the property owner reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the approved Variance and Conditional Use Permits. The property owners did not comply. Section 6. On November 9, 1993, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on November 16, 1993 and December 21, 1993, and at a field trip visit on December 11, -1993. The applicant was present at these three hearings. Section 7. Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits a revocation or modification of a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review on one or more of the following grounds: (1) that the approval was obtained by fraud, or that the applicant made a materially false representation on the subject application; or (2) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or (3) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or (4) that the use for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance. Section 8. Pursuant to Section 17.58.010(A)(2), the Planning Commission finds that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were exercised contrary to and in violation of the following conditions of approval: A. Condition F, Section 11 of City Council Resolution No. 679 requires that the structural lot coverage not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and that the total lot coverage not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. After reconstruction of the court, the structural lot coverage is 11,873 square feet or 6.71% and the total lot coverage is 14.7% exceeding structural and total lot coverage requirements and in violation of Condition F. B. Condition H, Section 11 requires that the area graded for the court not exceed 2,550 square feet (rectangular in shape and 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, according to the Development Plan). The area graded for the court is 5,760 square feet, of irregular RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 PAGE 3 shape, and up to 49 feet wide by up to 133 feet long exceeding the approved plans by 3,210 square feet in violation of Condition H. C. Condition I, Section 11 requires that any grading for the court preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. Excessive retaining wall construction and excessive grading that more than doubles the size of the approved court is in violation of Condition I. D. The approvals permit the encroachment of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long, 18 feet longer than the wall approved and in violation of Condition V of City Council Resolution No. 679. E. The "as built" sports court violates policies of the Land Use Element (Page 16) and the Open Space and Conservation Element (Page 15) of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.46.010) to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve existing mature vegetation in that grading for the court was excessive. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby revokes the Variance to permit the reconstruction of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE \, ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KEiYN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ss 15H1 DAY OF JANUARY, 1994. I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-1 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 PAGE 4 was approved and adopted ata regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 15, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Frost and Raine ABSTAIN: None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices EPUTY CITY CLERK • • RESOLUTION NO. 732 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 1991,'applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application fora Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991.• Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, March 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. On May 26, 1992, the City Council approved the applications in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 679. In 1993, the City was informed that the retaining wall and sports court that were reconstructed were not built according to plan. RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 2 The approved plans show a 100 foot long 4-foot high retaining wall and a 2,550 square foot court, whereas, the "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long and the sports court is 5,760 square feet. On September 17, 1993, the City requested that the property owner reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the approved Variance and Conditional Use Permits. The property owners did not comply. Section 6. On November 9, 1993, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This' notice was sent by first class mail. The Planning ,Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on November 16, 1993 and December 21, 1993, and at a field trip visit on December 11, 1993. The applicant was present at these three hearings. Section 7. On January 15, 1994, the Planning Commission revoked the permits in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 94-1. Section 8. On February 14, 1994, the applicants filed an appeal regarding the revocation to the City Council. On February 18, 1994, the' City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on March 1, 1994,. The applicant was present at the hearing. Section 9. Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits a revocation or modification of a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review on one or more of the following grounds: (1) that the approval was obtained by fraud, or that the applicant made a materially false representation on the subject application; or (2) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or (3) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or (4).that the use for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance. RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 3 Section 10. Pursuant to Section 17.58.010(A)(2), the City Council finds that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were exercised contrary to and in violation of the following conditions of approval: A. Condition F, Section 11 of City Council Resolution No. 679 requires that the structural lot coverage not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and that the total lot coverage not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. After reconstruction of the court, the structural lot coverage is 11,873 square feet or 6.71% and the total lot coverage is 14.7% exceeding structural and total lot coverage requirements and in violation of Condition F. B. Condition H, Section 11 requires that the area graded for the court not exceed 2,550 square feet (rectangular in shape and 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, according to the Development Plan). The area graded for the court is 5,760 square feet, of irregular shape, and up to 49 feet wide by up to 133 feet long exceeding the approved plans by 3,210 square feet in violation of Condition H. C. Condition I, Section 11 requires that any grading for the court preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. Excessive retaining wall construction and excessive grading that more than doubles the size of the approved court is in violation of Condition I. D. The approvals permit the encroachment of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long, 18 feet longer than the wall approved and in violation of Condition V of City Council Resolution No. 679. E. The "as built" sports court violates policies of the Land Use Element (Page 16) and the Open Space and Conservation Element (Page 15) of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.46.010) to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve existing mature vegetation in that grading for the court was excessive. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby revokes the Variance to permit the reconstruction of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1994. RESOLUTION NO.2 PAGE 4 ATTEST: g..eArvj MARILYN K N, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 732 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Swanson, Pernell, Mayor'Pro Tem Leeuwenburah and Mayor Murdock None ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheiner ABSTAIN: None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices had' A.A„ 4A/v} DEPUTY CITY CLERK RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 2 :120434 Recorder's Use FEE $ ' 2(a M 12 Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Offi.cp 'and return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 46 / I (We) the undersigned state: SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE >C' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )( I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described follows: as 4(2 P,;-i y'ese `c(Ar /ze_Azd //iyezh/s This property I am (We are) said is the subject of the above numbered cases. aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in ZONING CASE NO'. 46i SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE. x CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT X I (We) certify (or declare) under foregoing is true and correct. Print Owner Name Signature Mot -Intl the penalty of perjury that the RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS Print RECORDER'S OFFICE A t� [ R Owner LOS ANGELES COUNTY J�n Name LALII-ORNIA 11/ 1.(_A Signature MAST 4 114LAUG 3 i992 Address 42 Pcc +)(-,I)F5(= 1?)E.On (2o_ City/State (ZoLt_I C (-1+Lv, ��. C)0274 Address City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. State of C,iL1FORAIA County of SS. Lob, Am) c, t Lr-17 OFFICIAL SEAL DOUGLAS K. MC HATTIE t Notary Public -California j LOS ANGELES COJJNTY '> My Comm. Exp. Sep. 15, 1992 j to be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official alcialll se I. ' ce Notary's Si nature 4, (PT (S, I `)9?_ On this the 2C) day of U L Y 19 9 2, before me, 1� U () L S- I•-1 A i Ti the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared C) PD 1 1 A 4D IC (= 2' personally known to me 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence I l-I C subscribed to the executed it. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof • • xf-ti 1c5l "A" 1 RESOLUTION NO. 679 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 'Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance' for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously• constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991. September 17. 1991, October 22. 1991. and at a field trip visit or. September 5, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2. 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12. 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4. 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4. 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public h€ar.non January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Dewcelopment Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case. No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, hitch 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, andthe concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. The Planning Commission found 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. RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 2 Section 6. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A is required to permit the encroachment of 4-foot retaining walls ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The sports court will not encroach into the twenty-five (25) foot side yard easement. A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the undulating topography of the lot. The only flat area available to site a sports court and accompanying retaining walls is on the proposed relatively flat slope within the side yard setback. 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 the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order tc permit the reconstruction of the existing retaining walls. There wi:: not be any greater incursion into the setback than presently exists. The Variance will also facilitate a reduction in the size and profile of the court. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. A sufficient distance remains between the sports court and the uses on the adjacent property. The sports court will be further screened by a sound baffle screen and'existing landscaping as the new court will be lowered and will not be visible from neighboring properties. Engineering of the retaining walls will lower their height to the code required four feet and will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet: as indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A and dated May 6, 1992 subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 PAGE 3 Section 8. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing sports court that will be reduced to 2.550 square feet as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the City Council to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under certain conditions. Section 9. The City Council 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, the area proposed for the court1is already graded and used for such purpose, and the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. • B. 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 comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5 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 and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The sports court will be surrounded by sound baffle screening and existing landscaping, and the new court will be lowered and not be visible from neighboring properties. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court in accordance with the revised Development Plan attached hereto dated March 6, 1992 for a sports court in Zoning Case No. 461 subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the side yard setback for the continued encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court as indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated March 6, 1992, and approved in Sections 7 and 10, are subject to the following conditions: RESOLUTION N0. 679 PAGE 4 A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, 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 Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked REVISED Exhibit A dated March 6, 1992 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the court is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meetino all standards for a stable and corra: with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. G. All grading required for the reconstruction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards. H. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550. square feet in size. I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A drainagesystem shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. K. Existing mature shrubs and trees along the east and south side of the sports court shall be retained and maintained during the reconstruction of the court. • • RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 5 L. A sound baffle screen, along with landscape screening, shall be provided for the sports court and shall be maintained so as not to interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. Thr proposed height, design, location and materials used for the sound baffle screen shall be subject to City staff review and approval prior to installation. M. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plat: as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. N. Court lighting shall not be permitted. O. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. P. Noise from persons using the tennis court shall be kept to a minimum so as not to unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of persons on surrounding properties. Q. Noise from court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. R. The sports court shall not be used for purposes of providing tennis lessons by a tennis professional to persons outside the immediate family of the owner. S. A building permit shall be obtained for the retaining walls and sports court. RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 6 T. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports • that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. V. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. W. The'applicant shalt execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087,-or the approval shall not be effective. X. All conditions of this Variance and Conditiona? Use Permit approva:. except for Condition E. must be comp' i ed with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1992. OR GORDANA SWANSON ATTEST: DIANE SAYER, DEPUQ TY'`:CITY CLERK • • '"".4,%:-.,, ''''4,'.';''''', ' Y' ' ' ' , "..' ,. \., 50.31:0..:1', :!T`'S 1751!-.:::in:t 'i,!,:;z:-.';',,..'!... 'i.4112., t 0 t G, .-•;,r, ' ...e, 's ' ., ,,S,".' .." ; '''''. .„ :. ,, : s ' '., " ' ' '',';'.., " S.,.. .,. '''',.; .., „,t ,...,,,,„ ,,. } ,,,,s,„. ..„ sl • *suf.'s, .. s..?", S.'i — Covpcil op Vkay 26, 1992 bl tAle tolloylp, Councilaledber TerDell,101or rro was approved aDa aao?tea at a reg Vlayor Swartson. Co.raciltr.ezber Lee1Plertblxvitt. Co Ileistsbeirler viss: toss% 11.?,sstrr: ABSTAIV: '•.orte• 1. • • • • • • • • O. • b•-••••••••••-• Vilre o true aid marled *We Cr =OM t1ftbrs the seal, Imprinted In punt 14 d ttAztstrtmccortsr/Couro Ott ,..t./11;1°4" *"1" • AJD 3992 rY s'.%44.`-so:4% ricrnmemmenv curt Men COMM MECUM • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. 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 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of a retaining wall into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court at a single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, and October 22, 1991 and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. Section 3. 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 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A is required to permit the encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The sports court will not encroach into the twenty-five (25) side yard easement. A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the undulating topography of the lot. The only flat area available to site a sports court and accompanying retaining walls is on the proposed relatively flat slope within the side yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 2 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 the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order to permit the reconstruction of the existing retaining walls. There will not be any greater incursion into the setback than presently exists. The Variance will also facilitate a reduction in the size and profile of the court. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or ,improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is ,located. A sufficient distance remains between the sports court and the uses on the adjacent property. The sports court will be further screened by existing landscaping as the new court will be lowered and will not be visible from neighboring properties. Engineering of the retaining walls will lower their height to the code required four feet and will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 6. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing sports court that will be reduced to 2,550 square feet as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under certain conditions. Section 7. 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, the area proposed for the court is already graded and used for such purpose, and the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. 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 comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 3 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 and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The sports court will be screened by existing landscaping and the new court will be lowered and not be visible from neighboring properties. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto for a sports court in Zoning Case No. 461 subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 9. The Variance to the side yard setback for the continued encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and approved in Sections 4 and 7, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, 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 Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property, on which the court is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable andcorral with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 4 G. All grading required for the reconstruction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards. H. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550 square feet in size. I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A .drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. K. The existing landscaping shall be maintained and shall not interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. L. Court lighting shall not be permitted., M. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. N. Noise from court use shall not constitute a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. O. A building permit shall be obtained for the retaining wall and sports court. P. Prior to the submittal of.an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a•detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development. Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. R. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 5 S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087,•or the approval shall not be effective. T. All conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, except for Conditions B, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND OF NOVEMBER, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: nf� DIANE SA ER, DEPUTY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 91-27 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on November 2, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lay ABSTAIN: None c1.._ DEPUTY/CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 732 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 1991,'applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27,1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, March 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. On May 26, 1992, the City Council approved the applications in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 679. In 1993, the City was informed that the retaining wall and sports court that were reconstructed were not built according to plan. • • RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 2 The approved plans show a 100 foot long 4-foot high retaining wall and a 2,550 square foot court, whereas, the "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long and the sports court is 5,760 square feet. On September 17, 1993, the City requested that the property owner reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the approved Variance and Conditional Use Permits. The property owners did not comply. Section 6. On November 9, 1993, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on November 16, 1993 and December 21, 1993, and at a field trip visit on December 11, 1993. The applicant was present at these three hearings. Section 7. On January 15, 1994, the Planning Commission revoked the permits in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 94-1. Section 8. On February 14, 1994, the applicants filed an appeal regarding the revocation to the City Council. On February 18, 1994, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on March 1, 1994. The applicant was present at the hearing. Section 9. Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits a revocation or modification of a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review on one or more of the following grounds: (1) that the approval was obtained by fraud, or that the applicant made a materially false representation on the subject application; or (2) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or (3) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or (4) that the use for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance. l r r • • i RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 3 Section 10. Pursuant to Section 17.58.010(A)(2), the City Council finds that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were exercised contrary to and in violation of•the following conditions of approval: A. Condition F, Section 11 of City Council Resolution No. 679 requires that the structural lot coverage not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and that the total lot coverage not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. After reconstruction of the court, the structural lot coverage is 11,873 square feet or 6.71% and the total lot coverage is 14.7% exceeding structural and total lot coverage requirements and in violation of Condition F. B. Condition H, Section 11 requires that the area graded for the court not exceed 2,550 square feet (rectangular in shape and 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, according to the Development Plan). The area graded for the court is 5,760 square feet, of irregular shape, and up to 49 feet wide by up to 133 feet long exceeding the approved plans by 3,210 square feet in violation of Condition H. C. Condition I, Section 11 requires that any grading for the court preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. Excessive retaining wall construction and excessive grading that more than doubles the size of the approved court is in violation of Condition I. D. The approvals permit the encroachment of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long, 18 feet longer than the wall approved and in violation of Condition V of City Council Resolution No. 679. E. The "as built" sports court violates policies of the Land Use Element (Page 16) and the Open Space and Conservation Element (Page 15) of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.46.010) to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve existing mature vegetation in that grading for the court was excessive. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby revokes the Variance to permit the reconstruction of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1994. JOD AMU' 'OCKLMAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 111 PAGE 4 ATTEST: MARILYN K N, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 732 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenhurah and Mayor Murdock NOES: bone ABSENT: Councilr;enber Pei nsheirler ABSTAIN: None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK