Loading...
483, Construct a tennis court, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 92-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 483. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker.with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH), requesting a Conditional. Use Permit to construct a tennis court. Section 2. Prior to November, 1990, an illegal sports court was constructed within the side yard setback near the southern property line. In July, 1991, applications were made for a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to construct a sports court and a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct the existing sports court. Then, on May 26, 1992, Resolution No. 679 was approved by .the City Council to permit the applicants to construct a 2,550 square foot sports court that will encroach 10 feet into the side yard setback. Construction of the sports court began on the southern property line. The applicants planned to abandon the sports court and restore the south hillside to its natural state if the request for the construction of a tennis court were approved. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on September 15, 1992 and October 20, 1992, and at a field trip visit on September 26, 1992. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures would have been added to the project and pursuant to a mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 7,000 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 6. With respect to the request for a ConditionalUse Permit for a tennis court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. RESOLUTION NO. 92-29 PAGE 2 B. The project proposed is a 7,000 square foot tennis court. The residence is 4,736 square feet, the attached garage is 437 square feet, the stable is 510 square feet, and the service yard is 96 square feet. There is also a 2,500 square foot sports court under construction at the site which the applicant proposed to abandon and restore that hillside to its natural state with the approval of the tennis court. The structural lot coverage proposed is 12,779 square feet or 7.2% and the total lot coverage proposed is 19,379 square feet or 10.9%. The building pad coverage proposed is 26%. C. 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 north setback line, 12 feet from the residence and 12 feet from the stable, thereby creating a 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. D. The proposed project would not be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that the pad is on a steep canyon slope. Therefore, a building pad coverage of 26% is deemed excessive. E. The proposed project requires a cut of 950 cubic yards and a fill of 950 cubic yards and would not be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirement in Section 17.16.012.E.7 that "All grading required for the construction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards." F. The project would not be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. A portion of the lot has already been graded for a sports court and the additional grading proposed for the development of a tennis court would create a further detrimental visual impact in an area of high visibility that would .be hard to screen. There is evidence that drainage problems could occur if there is further disruption of large expanses of soil for grading and more overcovering of property with non -porous surfaces. G. The project would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the General Plan which "ensures that (residential) growth will take place in a way that promotes compatibility with adjacent properties, preserves the existing rural residential character, and is environmentally sensitive." (Land Use, p.13). Degrading and restoring the landscape on one hillside in order to grade and reconstruct another hillside is not environmentally RESOLUTION. NO. 92-29 PAGE 3 sensitive. The proposed tennis court has adjacent trails in the area and will effect the rural character of the neighborhood. H. The proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the pad and leaves little open space between property lines. This makes the court structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. I. The proposed development is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As previously indicated, the building pad coverage is excessive. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a tennis court in Zoning Case No. 483. 1992. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2.4 S'1 DAY OF rf° 4 61 Q 6 ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Imo. e) ,,.) MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-29 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 483.. RESOLUTION NO. 92-29 PAGE 4 was approved and adopted at .a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on November 21 , 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hankins ABSTAIN: None DEPUTY CrTY CLERK � R City 0/ l2 Ptiny October 26, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 483 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a tennis court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 483 was DENIED by the Plannning Commission at their regular meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 1992. The final Resolution and conditions of DENIAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on November 23, 1992. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within twenty days after you receive the final Resolution (Sections 17.32.140.and 17.32.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie ®Printed on Recycled Paper.