Loading...
487, Relocate stable, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 93-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO RELOCATE A STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 487. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Yang Wen Lee with respect to real property located at 4 Open Brand Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 111-EF), requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court and requesting Site Plan Review for the relocation of a stable and corral. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan Review on December 15, 1992 and January 19, 1993. Members of the Commission inspected the site individually on December 18, 1993 and December 19, 1993. Section 3. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 5,665 square foot tennis court 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 tennis court under certain conditions. Section 4. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The project proposed is a 5,665 square foot tennis court surrounded by a retaining wall that will not exceed 4 feet in height. The residence is 3,465 square feet, the attached garage is 630 square feet, the relocated stable is 450 square feet, and the service yard is 96 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 10,999 square feet or 19. 95 o and the total lot coverage proposed is 14,989 square feet or 27.34% within the limits of the Zoning Code. The building pad coverage proposed is 21.52% for the residential building pad and 36.4% for the building pad reserved for the tennis court, stable and corral. Overall building pad coverage is 28.12%. B. The granting of the request for the Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The tennis court would be located at the western portion of this pie -shaped lot, 20 feet from the property line and 46 feet from a tennis court on an adjacent property, thereby creating an additional prominent large expanse of concrete structural improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 PAGE 2 C. The proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the pad and leaves little open space between property lines. An existing tennis court is 46 feet away from the proposed court thereby making the court structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. D. The proposed tennis court project is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and would not be desirable to the public convenience, safety, and welfare because the proposed site is at the bottom of a canyon and within the path of a natural drainage course. E. The structural lot coverage proposed is 19.95% and the maximum structural lot coverage permitted by the Zoning Code is 20% thereby maximizing the permitted structural development and restricting any future structural development on the lot. F. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will impact the view and the privacy of neighbors because it will be visible from Open Brand Road and neighboring properties. The proposed court would be located on the western portion of the pie -shaped lot and would be situated 20 feet from the side property line, 53 feet from the front property line, 58 feet from the existing residence, and 120 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence. The area proposed for the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be most intrusive to surrounding properties and would interfere with the viewscape of Los Angeles harbor of property owners on the south side of Open Brand Road. The presence of the existing 527 square foot stable near Open Brand Road is appropriate to the rural atmosphere of the community. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 487 for a proposed 5,665 square foot tennis court, as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 6. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 PAGE 3 Section 7. _With respect to the Site Plan Review application to relocate an existing 527 square foot stable and corral to construct a 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot corral and 5,665 square foot tennis court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The relocation of the stable and corral from the southwest to the northwestern portion of the lot and the construction of an inset tennis court near the southwestern boundary of this pie -shaped lot, creates maximum structural lot coverage which is not compatible with the General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. As noted in Section 4, Paragraph E above, future structural development on the lot will be limited. Further, the building pad coverage where the tennis court, stable, and corral will be located will be 36.4% which is exceeds the building pad coverage on several properties in the vicinity. B. The proposed development does not preserve and integrate into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because the proposed project will require increased grading that will be done in a natural canyon and drainage course that may impinge on the safety and welfare of other residents and properties along Open Brand Road. The development plan does not follow the natural contours of the site as the proposed relocated stable and inset tennis court will be located in a natural canyon, that will not minimize grading and will interfere with the natural drainage courses in the canyon at the western portion of this lot. C. The proposed development is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the structural lot coverage will almost meet the maximum permitted and the proposed project is not consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage is not similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. Significant portions of the lot will be overdeveloped and scenic vistas across the western portion of the property will be blocked by tennis court screening as well as landscape screening. The viewscapes of adjacent neighbors as well as community easements will be obstructed along Open Brand Road. RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 PAGE 4 Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 487 for the relocation of a stable and corral and the construction of a tennis court on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a tennis court described in Section 5 and denies a request for Site Plan Review approval to relocate a stable and corral described in Section 8 in Zoning Case No. 487. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED OF FEBRUARY, 1993. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KErYN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 93-6 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO RELOCATE A STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 487. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts None None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost DEPUTY CIT CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY • OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO RELOCATE A STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 487. 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 Hr. and Mrs. Yang Wen Lee with respect to real property located at 4 Open Brand Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 111-EF), requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court and requesting Site Plan Review for the relocation of a stable and corral. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan Review on December 15, 1992 and January 19, 1993. Members of the Commission inspected the site individually on December 18, 1993 and December 19, 1993. Section 3. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 5,665 square foot tennis court 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 tennis court under certain conditions. Section 4. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The project proposed is a 5,665 square foot tennis court surrounded by a retaining wall that will not exceed 4 feet in height. The residence is 3,465 square feet, the attached garage is 630 square feet, the relocated stable is 450 square feet, and the service yard is 96 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 10,999 square feet or 19.95% and the total lot coverage proposed is 14,989 square feet or 27.34% within the limits of the Zoning Code. The building pad coverage proposed is 21.52% for the residential building pad and 36.4% for the building pad reserved for the tennis court, stable and corral. Overall building pad coverage is 28.12%. B. The granting of the request for the Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The tennis court would be located at the western portion of this pie -shaped lot, 20 feet from the property line and 46 feet from a tennis court on an adjacent property, thereby creating an additional prominent large expanse of concrete structural improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 PAGE 2 C. The proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the pad and leaves little open space between property lines. An existing tennis court is 46 feet away from the proposed court thereby making the court structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. D. The proposed tennis court project is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and would not be desirable to the public convenience, safety, and welfare because the proposed site is at the bottom of a canyon and within the path of a natural drainage course. E. The structural lot coverage proposed is 19.95% and the maximum structural lot coverage permitted by the Zoning Code is 20% thereby maximizing the permitted structural development and restricting any future structural development on the lot. F. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will impact the view and the privacy of neighbors because it will be visible from Open Brand Road and neighboring properties. The proposed court would be located on the western portion of the pie -shaped lot and would be situated 20 feet from the side property line, 53 feet from the front property line, 58 feet from the existing residence, and 120 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence. The area proposed for the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be most intrusive to surrounding properties and would interfere with the viewscape of Los Angeles harbor of property owners on the south side of Open Brand Road. The presence of the existing 527 square foot stable near Open Brand Road is appropriate to the rural atmosphere of the community. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 487 for a proposed 5,665 square foot tennis court, as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 6. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 PAGE 3 Section 7. With respect to the Site Plan Review application to relocate an existing 527 square foot stable and corral to construct a 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot corral and 5,665 square foot tennis court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The relocation of the stable and corral from the southwest to the northwestern portion of the lot and the construction of an inset tennis court near the southwestern boundary of this pie -shaped lot, creates maximum structural lot coverage which is not compatible with the General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. As noted in Section 4, Paragraph E above, future structural development on the lot will be limited. Further, the building pad coverage where the tennis court, stable, and corral will be located will be 36.4% which is exceeds the building pad coverage on several properties in the vicinity. B. The proposed development does not preserve and integrate into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because the proposed project will require increased grading that will be done in a natural canyon and drainage course that may impinge on the safety and welfare of other residents and properties along Open Brand Road. The development plan does not follow the natural contours of the site as the proposed relocated stable and inset tennis court will be located in a natural canyon, that will not minimize grading and will interfere with the natural drainage courses in the canyon at the western portion of this lot. C. The proposed development is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the structural lot coverage will almost meet the maximum permitted and the proposed project is not consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage is not similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. Significant portions of the lot will be overdeveloped and scenic vistas across the western portion of the property will be blocked by tennis court screening as well as landscape screening. The viewscapes of adjacent neighbors as well as community easements will be obstructed along Open Brand Road. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 PAGE 4 Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 487 for the relocation of a stable and corral and the construction of a tennis court on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a tennis court described in Section 5 and denies a request for Site Plan Review approval to relocate a stable and corral described in Section 8 in Zoning Case No. 487. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED OF FEBRUARY, 1993. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KE , DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 93-6 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT. AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO RELOCATE A STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 487. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost r�- . 1:..u,m> DEPUTY CIT CLERK • 41/ 17.32.210--17.36.010 17.32.210 Appeal --Notice. Upon the filing of such an appeal, the City Clerk shall give notice of the filing of said notice to: A. Applicant; S. Appellant; and C. Any person who protested. either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection B of Section 7.40.060. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 1SS $6, 1978: Ord. 33 $6.21, 1960). 17.32.220 Appeal--Hearing--Multiple appeals. In the event more than one appeal is filed purusant to Section 17.32.140 then all appeals shall be heard at the same time. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 1SS 56, 197$: Ord. 33 56.22, 1960) . • 14•33.1/0- .1). )). lt0 17.32.140 Appeal —Persons authorized. The action, b the Planning Commission in matters described in this '- chapter shall be by majority vote and shall be final, cam. clusive and effective twenty calendar days after the tilrw ^r` of notice, as provided in Section 17.32.090, unless within said twenty -day period an. appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by any of the following: A. The applicants a. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the writtop notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection A of Section 17.40.060; or C. The City Council, upon the affirmative vote of three members of the Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: twit. ` 155 54, 1971: Ord. 33 56.14, 1960) . 17.32.150 Appeal--Contents--Fee. An appeal from 444 order, requirement, decision, or determination under the title must set forth specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission or wherein the decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by the evidence in the matter. In addition, any person appealing the decision of the Plan/aryl Commission must pay to the City Clerk, at the time of filing the written notice of appeal, the required fee specified by resolution as hereafter adopted and from time to time changed by the City Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.15, 1960). 17.32.160 Appeal--Recordkeepinc!. Upon receipt of a written appeal and the payment of the fee required, the City Clerk shall advise the Secretary of the Planning Comnission to transmit forthwith the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall be charged with the duty and responsibility of maintaining a complete file and record on each application processed pursuant to this chapter which shall contain the original application processed pursuant to this chapter, all correspondence•aad reports pertaining thereto, all affidavits of publicatione posting and mailing, as required by law, minutes of all meetings of the Planning Commission pertaining to this ratter, advisory reports of technical agents, the report, findings and decision of the Planning Commission, and an affidavit of the mailing and the giving of said notice, as required by this chapter. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.16, 1960). 215 (Rolling Hills 8/* 3) 17.32.170--17.32.200 • 17.32.170 City Council to be Board of Zoning Ad )ustment_and Appeal. For the purpose of this chapter in conformity with Article 2 of Chapter 4, Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council appoints and creates -each and every member of the City Council, sitting as a whole, as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal for the City. The City Council shall meet as a Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal in connection with other City business and, in so meeting. shall be governed by all the rules and regulations now adopted or hereafter adopted governing the procedure of the City Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 $6.17, 1960) . 17.32.180 Appeal--Rearing--Notice--Basis for decision. The City Cierx shall set a nearing before the City Council 4. as t Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal not less tha after the receipt of said appeal or request for review. The hearing shall be on at leant ten days prior written notice to the applicant, the appellant, and to any other persons who received or should have received, under Section 17.40.060, notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission. At such a hearing no new matter nor new evidence shall be received or considered by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, and the Board shall make its determination on the basis of the record brought before it on appeal or review. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.18, 1960) . 17.32.190 Appeal --New hearing --Authorized when. Notwith- standing the provisions of Section 17.32.180, the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal may, by majority action at any time during the course of the review of a decision of the Planning Commission under this chapter brought before it by appeal, determine that a new hearing shall be set by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, at which time the public will be entitled to appear to present new or additional evidence for or against said application. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.18, 1960) . 17.32.200 Appeal --New hearing --Copy of records. The action of the Board of toning Adjustment and Appeal shall be by majority vote and shall be final and conclusive. The decision of the Board under this chapter shall be set forth in full in the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal. A certified copy of the excerpts of said minutes shall be delivered by the City Clerk to the City Council, the Secretary of the Planning Comission and the Planning Commission for their use and records, as well as to the applicant or the appellant, if they are different parties. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 $6.20, 1960) . 216 (Rolling Hills 8/83)