149, Construct a new tennis court, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Dr. Richard Witmer
Lot 14-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 149
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Dr. Richard Witmer, Lot 14-EF, Eastfield Tract,
for a conditional use permit under Article III, Section 3.06, Front
Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 for construction of a tennis court
in the front yard at 79 Eastfield Drive came on for hearing on the
20th day of April, 1976 in the Council Chambers of the Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, and the
applicant, having submitted evidence in support of the application, the
Planning Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and Report
as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Dr. Richard Witmer, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 14-EF, Eastfield
Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and that notice
of the public hearing in connection with said application was given as
required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33 of the City of
Rolling Hills, California.
II.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests a conditional
use permit for construction of a tennis court in the front yard of his
property, which is being developed, and has advised the Planning Com-
mission that a tennis -court would be least conspicuous in that location,
which is below road level and well screened from the road by existing trees.
Further, it is his wish to build his home on a knoll on the rear of the
lot, where it would be visible from Crest Road East, and in so doing, he
he would be able to take advantage of a view which is not visible from the
front of the property, and could retain a pastoral look since less grading
would be required for a home in that location, and the home and horses on
the property, rather than a tennis court, would be visible from Crest Road
East. Dr. Witmer stated further that the geology report has indicated
that the front of the property consists of silt to a depth of 15 feet
or more, which would have to be removed and recompacted to accommodate
a house, and which would require substantial alteration of the property.
There is also a drainage problem on the lot,and there is substantial
geological contrast, as the rear is extremely stable because rocks in the
hillside are slanted back into the hill. Dr. Witmer advised the Commission
that persons who are expert in the field have advised that the site on the
hill at the rear of the property is an ideal location for a house because
of the stability.
• III.
The Commission finds that letters are on file from Joseph and
Frances Nebolon, 68 Eastfield Drive; Robert H. Archer, 77 Eastfield Drive;
and Norton L. Donner, 81 Eastfield Drive, approving the location of a
tennis court in the front yard. Further, Dr. Nebolon asked that the
court be screened from the street by shrubs or trees; Mr. Archer requested
that the trees protecting his property from the Witmer property not be
disturbed, and Dr. Donner stated that a tennis court would enhance the
value of the property and the location would not create an esthetic
problem.,
IV.
The Commission finds that a field trip was made to the site, and
because there is no construction on the property the Planning Commission
determined that it would be possible to locate the residence and tennis
court on the property in legal locations without the need to request a
conditional use permit, as the property contains in excess of three acres
and such permits should be granted only where hardship exists and there
is no alternative. The Commission finds that no hardship exists, and
further, the Commission finds that conditional use permits have been
granted for other tennis courts in front yards on Eastfield Drive, with
unsatisfactory results, and the trend should be stopped.
V.
From the foregoing it is concluded that' a conditional use permit
should not be granted under Article III, Section 3.06, Front Ya'rd
Requirements, Ordinance No. 33.to Dr. Richard Witmer, in order to preserve
substantial property rights possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such conditional use permit
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious
to property in the same vicinity and zone, and it is, therefore, so
ordered.
/s/ Forrest Riegel
Chairman, Planning Commission
9ecretary, Planning Comission