05018'99 1
RESOLUTION NO. 501
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT - ZONING CASE NO. 278
The City Council of the City of Rolling -Hills -hereby finds,
resolves and orders as follows:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. Mirko
Giaconi with respect to real property described as 92 Saddleback
Road, Rolling Hills, California (Parcel 73-B of Rolling Hills tract)
requesting a.Conditional Use Permit for a cabana and tennis court
only, with a variance from Section 17.16.012 F (3) of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code to permit placement of a tennis court in the
front yard in the RAS -1 (Residential, Agricu.ltural-Suburban) zoning_
district, and a variance for the swimming pool and cabana to also
be in the front yard. The Planning Commission held public hearings
on July 20 and August 17, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers,
City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California and a
notice of the time, date, place and purpose of the aforesaid hear-
ings was duly given.
Section 2. Evidence., both written and oral, was duly
V presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the.
aforesaid public hearings. Upon consideration of the evidence,
the Planning Commission approved a variance for the swimming pool
and cabana and denied the application for a tennis court in the
front yard.
Section 3. An appeal of the Planning Commission's de-
cision was timely filed by the applicant on September 7., 1982
pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
Section 4. On October 11 and November 22, 1982 the City
Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The ap_-,
plicant was represented at the hearing by his attorney and his
architect. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and
considered by the.City Council.
.Section 5. The City Council finds, pursuant to .Section
17.32.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that:
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the subject property which result in
the strict application of the.Zoning Ordinance depriving such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification. The property is a
single-family residential lot, as are surrounding properties.
There is nothing extraordinary about the property to justify a
variation from the zoning ordinance prohibition against tennis
courts in the front yard, since other lots along Saddleback Road
have rural building set -backs leaving front yards with large open
areas, as specified by the Zoning Ordinance of Rolling Hills,
Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
2. The requested variance is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The
primary use of the subject property is a single-family residence.
The applicant does not have a substantial property right in pos-
sessing a tennis court on his property and in fact, most properties
in the City and along Saddleback Road do not have tennis courts.
Any tennis court in the City requires a Conditional Use Permit
pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, regardless of other constraints.
Some lots are not designed to have accessory structures such as,
tennis courts, and their absence does not deprive the owner of the
primary use of the property, use for a single-family residence.
40`0
The applicant has received approval to place a swimming pool on
the property and any further encroachment in the front yard would
substantially conflict with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance, which is to maintain front yards free and clear of
visible encroachments.
3. Grant of the requested variance will be mater-
ially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property
in the vicinity. Placement of the tennis court in the front yard
will require substantial otherwise -unnecessary grading and creation.:
of an unusually high mound of man-made unnatural earth form adjacent
to Saddleback Road. Placement of the court immediately adjacent to
the road encroaches on the entire front yard and serves to defeat the
very purpose of the zoning ordinance, and would be unlike the other
properties in the vicinity.
4. Granting the requested variance would constitute_
a grant of special privileges inconsistent. with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is situated because there are.no special.conditions that
justify as severe an encroachment on the front yard as is requested. -
Approval of the variance would provide the applicant with a privi=
lege which is clearly unavailable to other similar properties.
Section :.6. The City Council .f.inas;:.pursuant -t.o ..Section
17.32.060. of the Rolling Hills Municipal :.Code,.that:
1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit to
assure compatibility cannot -be met, since the proposed tennis
court deviates from the requirements.
2. The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit would
intrude into the front yard, deviating from the ordinance.standards
for tennis courts and uses of land in the general area of Saddle-.
back Road, as evidenced by testimony and existing physical setting.
Section 7, Based on the aforementioned findings, the
Council hereby denies Zoning Case No. 278 insofar as it seeks a
tennis court in the front yard with respect.to the property de-
scribed in Section 1 hereof.
.PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED th
1982.
."3th day of December,
V_ee
a�or
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 501 was duly adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, California at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of December, 1983 by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Swanson, Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
r City Clerk