Loading...
461, Permit for reconstruction of a, Staff Reports• ` O I'0//ifl L/ S INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 DATE: July 27,1994 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RESTORATION OF HILLSIDE AT 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD MR. & MRS. MOHAN W. BHASKER Staff met at the subject site with Ms. Julie Heinsheimer, City Landscape Consultant; Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering; Mr. Rick Hilliard, Landscape Architect; and property owner Mr. Bhasker on July 26, 1994. Subject to City and Community Association approvals, it was determined that leaving some of the existing construction and covering over other parts would be the easiest and most practical method of dealing with the required restoration of the hillside to a natural state. Mr. McHattie said that he would calculate the amount of soil needed to fill and contour the sports court area. He suggested that the amount would be less than 400 cubic yards. The entire sports court area will be filled and contoured with soil so that it will retain a natural hillside appearance. Plans will show that a 34 to 36 inch chain link fence remain at the northern portion of the sports court near the driveway where a series of french drains have been installed. The 5 foot retaining wall at the south side of the sports court in the setback area behind which a series of french drains have been installed will be bermed and covered with planting materials that will extend beyond the wall. Planting materials will echo and expand upon the plantings that are existing on the hillside site area. The property owner will have revised plans prepared that will be reviewed by the City and the Community Association for compliance within the next two weeks. Once the plans are approved, we will set a reasonable time for completion of the hillside restoration. Printed on Recycled Paper. •City ofiedfinF MEMORANDUM TO: FILE FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGE SUBJECT: 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DATE: APRIL 11, 1994 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 On Friday, April 8, 1994, South Bay Engineering Representative Doug McHattie visited this office representing Dr. Mohan Bhasker and questioned whether the City could impose a fine against Dr. Bhasker for the construction of the illegal court on his property. It was Mr. McHattie's contention that it a fine were to be paid by Dr. Bhasker, that this would allow him to maintain the illegal construction on his property. I explained to Mr. McHattie that I did not feel this was appropriate for the City to pursue and in fact felt that it possibly be illegal. Secondly, I expressed the fact that allowing fines to be paid to allow for "as built" construction would in essence be discarding the Zoning and Building Code of this City. At the beginning of the meeting, I questioned Mr. McHattie's capacity in this case. Mr. McHattie said he is employed by Dr. Bhasker and is serving as his representative. I explained to Mr. McHattie that I needed to question him on the establishment of this relationship because Mr. McHattie's testimony at previous City Council meetings had indicated that he was not involved with the illegal construction in any way shape or form. Since there is no construction posed on the property short of restoring it to its natural state, I felt it important to establish this relationship between South Bay Engineering and Dr. Bhasker. CRN:mlk corres.cm\sbebhasker.mem @Printed on Recycled Paper. • • City opeolli,1 JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 AGENDA ITEM 8-A MEETING DATE 3/14/94 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) 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. BACKGROUND The applicants had appealed the revocation of a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback and the revocation of a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court by the Planning Commission to the City Council on February 28, 1994. This resolution memorializes City Council concurrance with the Planning Commissions's decision. Staff will proceed with Code Enforcement to require the property owner to return the hillside to its natural state within 60 days. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 732. ®P• ra7 r.• ..Y� Inn P:�nnr • i r RESOLUTION NO. 732 D!AFT 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. A 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. f • • 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. JODY MURDOCK, MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 4 ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, 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: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • City oi /2o//n e Jh//J AGENDA ITEM 6-B MEETING DATE 3/1/94 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 I-AX: (310) 377-7288 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) An appeal of a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Variance for the encroachment of retaining walls in the side yard setback and a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Conditional Use Permit for a reconstructed clay sports court. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants are appealing a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Variance for the encroachment of retaining walls in the side yard setback and a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot reconstructed clay sports court which were memorialized in the attached Resolution No. 94-1 on January 24, 1994. 2. Prior to November, 1990, a sports court was constructed without permits and a stop work order was issued by the Building Inspector. After applications were made in July, 1991 by the Bhaskers, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the reconstruction of the court in November, 1991. The City Council took the case under jurisdiction and remanded the case back to the Planning Commission when it was learned at a field trip meeting that the plot plan was inaccurate and an addition to the residence was not depicted on the plot plan in /December, 1991. On February 1, 1992, the Planning Co fission reapproved the Variance and Conditional Use Permit fo the sports court. On February 10, 1992, the City Council appealed the reapproval of the case. 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. The City Council approved the reconstruction of the 2,550 square foot sports court on May 26, 1992. • • ZONING CASE NO. 461 PAGE 2 3. On July 7, 1992, Dr. Bhasker made application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,000 square foot tennis court, a separate structure to be sited at the north side of the lot and residence and different from the subject 2,550 square foot sports court proposed near the south property line. 4. On September 3, 1992, building permits were issued for a 2,550 sports court. 5. In November, 1992, after duly noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission denied the request for a 7,000 square foot tennis court in Resolution No. 92-29. 6. In August, 1993, the Planning Department was informed by the Rolling Hills Community Association that Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker had developed a sports court that was not built according to plan and that it is more than twice the size of the approved 2,550 square foot court. 7. Recent survey plans show that the sports court is, in fact, 5,760 square feet and more than two times the approved court size. 8. In a letter dated, September 17, 1993, the Bhaskers were formally requested to reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the Variance and Conditional Use Permit. They were notified to contact the Planning Department by October 7, 1993 or we would take action to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under authority of Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 9. On January 24, 1994, after duly noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission revoked the Variance and Conditional Use Permits. 10. On February 8, 1994, staff notified the Bhaskers that they could appeal the case to the City Council on or before February 14, 1994, after which the revocation will be final, or remove the sports court and all retaining walls and restore the hillside to its natural state. Dr. Bhasker filed his appeal on February 14, 1994. 11. On February 22, 1994, staff received a telephone call from Mrs. Kathryn McKinnie, 3 El Concho, who said she strongly disapproves of the Bhaskers adding a court. 12. Attached is a chronology of Planning Department files related to the property at 42 Portuguese Bend Road. ZONING CASE NO. 461 PAGE 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed plans, open the public hearing and take public testimony. C1t a/ I? PP•,y Jh/h REQUEST FOR APPEAL APPLICATION FILE NO. INCORPORATED JANUARY. 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX (213) 377.7288 PROPERTY ADDRESS: /4Z rP 1-ti cy e� "f e,A,J p,n4 ck0,--74 OWNER: tVt,al\ UJ - 70 1S KG I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: ULk? c zy,11,v ^rotct coo es ,.A. A i' o, ""t G.,,, cir-In k ,ti.:, c Y t- kci- vl r-A 16Lf-y.w\ et +E" 5; ® Ccur I-- ,A.-, vvvitkA in At a.- Lo -g'tyur\ , .€0 ram. Lc -wit- 1..(,4e1 01- AU- '2-,+I, t.xt h. 10.`6' . 1Mi,N c:,2 r, 1 U D (:.&`U Y11� vv► jC r ttTu 2 1 �1 "mil c K , W `v C v,h•11-4t1 gwril-ctLQ_ • VC c ,e, c.•r e k . s .6._ rt• 0 I cA w\ w, at -Iv KM 11AS - ki,‘ CO._. A VA.:4 011.vvle AYc 44-1.1 It-LkilvIr a) Li.h-f ciA - fLA.4. 14\1- 6-e- -1 -.A.44,N.kry-do er . l Y rkQ AY! ve ,,., Q..N w a Ye_ b�•Ui t t' o w� w1 w: dire 'f k4 "jam_ fr c }-t-i n ,J C•VLR.. SIGNED *,` AAAA /l.'A �•(tA1- DATE: • a • 1- 4 - q -e-:( - FEE: i A (()-C'" (Two-thirds of original application fee) • • 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 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 reconstructe: ere 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 cpnstruction 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 ADOPT b TH tS 15!'H DAY OF JANUARY, 1994. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KE N, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ss 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 at a 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 • City O/ Rotting -WA INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 CHRONOLOGY OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILES (310)377.1521 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) FAX: (310) 377.7288 August 4, 1976 Building Permit finalled for 760 sq.ft. room addition. July 3, 1981 Building Permit expired for Family Room addition. December 23, 1989 Building Permit finalled for roof -recover. July 31,' 1989 Application by Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker for Site Plan Review for grading for pad and driveway for a 1,150 sq.ft. barn on the property's natural canyon slope, west of Portuguese Bend Road which separates the western one-third of the property. January 23, 1990 Dr. Bhasker withdraws request for Site Plan Review for the construction of a barn on the western portion of the property. February 7, 1990 Building Permit finalled for 1,490 sq.ft. of residential additions. November 26, 1990 Stop Work Order issued by Building Inspector Bill Magill regarding grading, retaining wall, permits required. An illegal sports court was constructed. November 27, 1990 Dr. Bhasker responds that he will be hiring South Bay Engineering to prepare plans for applications. June 28, 1991 Letter from P: ii ui ai r' l a.::...:,-H gar to Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker regarding illegal sports court and retaining wall referred to the sections of the Municipal Code requiring the need for a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a sports court. Application forms were provided and the letter noted the City's willingness to expedite the case as soon as forms were completed and fees were paid. July 9, 1991 Dr. Bhasker makes application for a Variance to encroach 10 feet into the 35-foot' side yard setback to construct a sports court, and a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct existing sports cour„t� Cq i August 410 C14, oy JJI// INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 CHRONOLOGY OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILES FAX:(310)377-7288 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) 4, 1976 Building Permit finalled for 760 sq.ft. room addition. July 3, 1981 December 23, 1989 July 31, 1989 January 23, 1990 February 7, 1990 November 26, 1990 November 27, 1990 June 28, 1991 July 9, 1991 Building Permit expired for Family Room addition. Building Permit finalled for roof -recover. Application by Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker for Site Plan Review for grading for pad and driveway for a 1,150 sq.ft. barn on the property's natural canyon slope, west of Portuguese Bend Road which separates the western one-third of the property. Dr. Bhasker withdraws request for Site Plan Review for the construction of a barn on the western portion of the property. Building Permit finalled for 1,490 sq.ft. of residential additions. Stop Work Order issued by Building Inspector Bill Magill regarding grading, retaining wall, permits required. An illegal sports court was constructed. Dr. Bhasker responds that he will be hiring South Bay Engineering to prepare plans for applications. Letter from the City to Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker regarding illegal sports court and retaining wall referred to the sections of the Municipal Code requiring the need for a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a sports court. Application forms were provided and the letter noted the City's willingness to expedite the case as soon as forms were completed and fees were paid. Dr. Bhasker makes application for a Variance to encroach 10 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback to construct a sports court, and a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct existing sports court ®P.. . ; f r Py.pyr,"d 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD CHRONOLOGY PAGE 2 November 2, 1991 December 4, 1991 February 1, 1992 February 10, 1992 May 26, 1992 July 7, 1992 September Planning Commission approves Variance to encroach 10 feet into side yard setback and Conditional Use Permit to construct 2,550 square foot sports court per Resolution No. 91-27. The City Council takes case under jurisdiction and at a field trip meeting, the Council remands the case back to Planning Commission when it is learned that an addition to the single family residence is not depicted on the plot plan. Planning Commission reapproves Variance to encroach 10 feet into side yard setback and Conditional Use Permit to construct 2,550 square foot sport court per Resolution No. 92- 7. City Council appeals reapproval of Variance to encroach 10 feet into side yard setback and Conditional Use Permit to construct sports court. City Council approves Resolution No. 679 permitting Variance and Conditional Use Permit to construct 2,550 sq.ft. sports court that will encroach 10 feet into the south side yard setback. Dr. Bhasker makes application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court at the north portion of the property along the setback line, 35 feet from the property line, a separate structure from the sports court. , 1992 Building Permits are issued for a 2,550 square foot sports court. November 21, 1992 After duly noticed public hearings, Planning Commission denies request to construct a 7,000 sq.ft. tennis court in Resolution No. 92-29. November 23, 1992 City Council receives and files Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-29. • • 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD CHRONOLOGY PAGE 3 September 17, 1993 Letter from City to Dr. Bhasker requesting response by October 7, 1993 that the constructed sports court be reduced in size to 2,550 square feet after being informed by the Community Association that it was actually more than 2 times the size at 5,760 square feet or make application for a modification to the Variance and Conditional Use Permit. January 24, 1994 Planning Commission revokes Variance and Conditional Use Permits for Zoning Case No. 461. February 8, 1994 Letter from City to the Bhaskers notifying them of options open to them: 1) appeal to City Council or 2) restore hillside. February 14, 1994 Dr. Bhasker files appeal to City Council. City 0/ leollinv INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA ITEM 4-A MEETING DATE 1/24/94 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) 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. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission revoked the subject Variance and Conditional Use Permit on January 15, 1994 after finding that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were exercised contrary to and in violation of the conditions of approval in that the retaining wall and court were not constructed according to plan (Resolution No. 94-1 attached). Structural lot coverage was exceeded, total lot coverage was exceeded, the 2,550 square foot area of the court permitted was more than doubled to 5,760 square feet, and more than twice the amount of grading took place in violation of the land use and open space and conservation policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve existing mature vegetation. 2. Following the 30-day appeal period, staff will pursue code enforcement regarding the violations. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 94-1. 1 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 propertylocated 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 spQits 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 ADOPTEb THt'S 15'H DAY OF JANUARY, 1994. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ss 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 at a 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 �•K� �✓ BEPUTY CITY CLERK