Loading...
487, Relocate stable, Correspondence£i, of R0f&, JdPL CERIIFIED MAIL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 February 23, 1993 Mr. & Mrs. Yang Wen Lee 4 Open Brand Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 487. 4 Open Brand Road (Lot 111-EF' APPEAL PERIOD RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lee: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 487 was DENIED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on February 16, 1993 at a regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision was reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on February 22, 1993. The resolution will become effective: Twenty days after the receipt of this letter if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.42.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 93-6, specifying the findings set forth by the Planning Commission and Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Since ely, LOLA UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 93-6, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie CERTIF.Lee Printed on Recycled Paper. 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 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% 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: lin!IYIDnY,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 CITY"CLERK • i7.):.140•-1 a, a. i$Q 17.33.140 Appeal --Persons authorised. The aetia" by the Planning Commission in matters described in this t . chapter shall be by majority vote and shall be final. 4mm. elusive and effective twenty calendar days after the filth. ?`r" of notice, as provided in Section 17.32.090, unless within said twenty -day period an appeal in writing is filed view the City Clerk by any of the following: A. The applicants • R. 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 writtems 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: Ord, ' 155 Si. 1974: Ord. 33 $6.14, 1960) . 17.32.150 Appeal--Contents--Fee. An appeal from taky 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 Planni,ag Commission must pay to the City Clerk, at the time of fifist9 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 $6.1S, 1960). • 17.32.160 A peal--Recordkeeping. Upon receipt of a written appeal and the payment of the fee required, the City Clerk shall advise the Secretary of the Planning Commission to transmit forthwith the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall be charged with they 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 •a* reports pertaining thereto. all affidavits of publicatiees posting and mailing, as required by law, minutes of all meetings of the Planning Coission pertaining to this latter, 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), 1901: Ord. 33 $6.16, 1960) . 215 (Rolling Rills 8/$3) 17.32.170-.17.32.200 12. 32.120 City Council to be Board of toning Mjustment and Appeal. For the purpose of this chapter and 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 toning 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--Hearing--Notice--Basis for decision. The City Clerk shall set a hearing before the City Council as t Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal not less th after the receipt of said appeal or request for review. The hearing shall be on at 10;st ten days prior written notice to the app an , 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 toning 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 $6.18, 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 16.19, 1960) . 17.32.200 Appeal- -New hearing --Copy of records. The action of the Board of Zoning 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 toning 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 Commission 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) • • 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; B. 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 d of Section 7.40.060. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 1SS 56, 1978: Ord. 33 $6.21, 1960). 17.32.220 Appeal--Nearing--Multiple appeals. In the event more than one appeal is tiled purusant to Section 17.32.140 then all appeals shall be heard at the same time. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 1SS S6, 1978: Ord. 33 56.22, 1960) . John Eugene, M.D. CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY LASER SURGERY THORACIC SURGERY December 14, 1992 • rogavik) DEC 151992 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 RE: ZONING CASE NUMBER 487 Dear Commissioners: I have had the opportunity to review the subject application and plans for Zoning Case Number 487. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court and request Site Plan. Review for the relocation of a stable and corral for the property at #4 Open Brand Road, Rolling Hills, California, lot 111-EF. Open Brand Road is a quiet dead-end street with modest sized homes (average size less than 3,500 square feet). There is a calm country atmosphere to this street and one of the most strategic sites for that serenity is the canyon between #2 Open Brand Road and #4 Open Brand Road. This canyon serves as runoff for the street. The canyon is home to many animals and birds. I find it strange that the initial study has not shown that further construction in this canyon will not have a significant effect on the environment. I have studied these plans and a great deal of cut and fill must be undertaken in order to construct a tennis court in that location and this will certainly have the effect of possibly under- mining . t.rf • a the Open Brand n.,a�. and certainly interfering with runoff, to say nothing of the habitat for the animals. In reviewing the plans, I was struck with the absurd relationship of the tennis court to the rest of the property. It doesn't make sense that a 7,000 square foot tennis court can coexist with a 3,500 square foot house. 23451 Madison St. Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 378-9429 FAX (310) 378-4808 • • December 14, 1992 Page Two Certainly tennis courts are not unwelcome, but they belong on large properties (multiple acreage properties) with a house at least as large as the court. To do anything less, as is the case at #4 Open Brand Road, is architecturally and aesthetically inharmonious with the neighborhood. It is true that there is already a tennis court on Open Brand Road. It is on the north side of the canyon at #2 Open Brand Road. This court at #2 Open Brand Road is smaller than the one proposed for #4 Open Brand Road and it is largely hidden from view. The tennis court proposed for #4 Open Brand Road is larger than the one at #2 Open Brand Road and it is immediately adjacent to the street and will never be obscured by any amount of landscaping or counter -sinking. It will completely eliminate the pastoral attitude of Open Brand Road and it will practically touch the tennis court at #2 Open Brand Road which will give a book -end tennis court appearance to the street that will be absolutely silly. This is Rolling Hills, not Beverly Hills. Throughout the City of Rolling Hills, when tennis courts are built, they are built in a sheltered private location where they will not be visible from the road or from... other properties. The proposal for #4 Open Brand Road places a tennis court in full view of the street and even from Eastfield Road. It will destroy the serenity of Open Brand Road. The canyon is the predominant view for #1 Open Brand Road and #3 Open Brand Road. My family and I have always enjoyed the view through the canyon to the distant harbor and we do not want the pastoral aspect of the view destroyed by a tennis court. There is no way that anyone in my household wishes to have the view altered, changed, violated, vilified or desecrated by a tennis court. In summary, I find that the proposal for construction at #4 Open Brand Road will cause a situation which is unharmonious with the character of the neighborhood and detrimental to the charm of the neighborhood. I appreciate the opportunity that the commissioners have given me to be able to respond to Zoning Case Number 487. Respectfully submitted, Jol�rn.-Eugen , M.D. #1 Open B and Road Rollin ills, California 90274 Q D /'o//in ��L>L>3 ✓INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,f NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 NOTIFICATION LETTER December 3, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Yang Wen Lee 4 Open Brand Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 487 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court and request for Site Plan Review for the relocation of a stable and corral at 4 Open Brand Road (Lot 111-EF) Dear Dr. and Mrs. Lee: Your application for Zoning Case No. 487 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meetir>rg on Tuesday, December 15, 1992. I The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, December 11, 1992. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sinc ely, (1-4111161.191. 27AfA/ LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie Printed on Recycled Paper. • \Ctiy 0/ RO/A _Mid } November 24, 1992 Business Filings Department Los Angeles County Clerk 111 North Hills Street, Room 106 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Dear Sir or Madam: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Enclosed find a Public Hearing Notice regarding Zoning Case No. 487 in the City of Rolling Hills. Please post for 30 days and after that time please stamp and return to the City in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed on Recycled Paper. 411 City 0/ /?0f/tfl ✓ . �1/a INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 October 16, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Yang Lee 4 Open Brand Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 SUBJECT: STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR ZONING CASE NO. 487 4 OPEN BRAND ROAD (LOT 111-EF) Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Tennis Court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Lee: A preliminary review of the application noted above has been completed by the City's staff and pursuant to state law we find that the information submitted is: X Not Complete. The application has been held in abeyance because certain information is missing, you failed to comply with certain requirements, or both. The information needed to complete the application is listed below, and must be supplied before the application can be deemed complete. Additional Information/Requirements 1. Section 17.16.012.E.7 related to tennis courts of the Zoning Code states that "cutting and filling shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards." Plan shows cut of 1,200 cubic yards and fill of 1,200 cubic yards. To conform with the Zoning Code apply for a Variance or reduce the size of the court. 2. Show percentage of stable access slope. 3. Show the existing buildable area which is that portion of a lot that constitutes the existing building pad and any contiguous portion of the lot within the area defined by the required minimum setbacks that has an average slope of ten percent (10%) or less. If there is not an existing building pad, the buildable area shall mean that portion of the lot within allowable setbacks that has an average slope of ten percent (10%) or less. Denote building pads) on plot plan with colored markers. Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions about the application process. Sincerely, (7a el 4, Z(/'47----- LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie • City February 23, 1993 O /'0t/tfl finis INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CERTINIED MAIL NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Mr. & Mrs. Yang Wen Lee 4 Open Brand Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 487. 4 Open Brand Road (Lot 111-EF) APPEAL PERIOD RESOLUTION NO. 93-6 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lee: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 487 was DENIED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on February 16, 1993 at a regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision was reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on February 22, 1993. The resolution will become effective: Twenty days after the receipt of this letter if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.42.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 93-6, specifying the findings set forth by the Planning Commission and Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Since ely, /rL LOLA UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 93-6, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLIN G HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie CERTIF.Lee IS Printed on Recycled Paper.