Loading...
0549p? M RESOLUTION NO. 549 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ZONING CASE NO. 323. THE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Paul .11 Lupo with respect to real property located at No. 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 192B, Tract LACA 51) requesting a condi- tional use permit for a tennis court on said property. Section 2. The application was first considered by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1985 at which time the Commission, after receiving and considering evidence, denied the permit because of the proposed tennis court's location in a canyon in contravention of Municipal Code Section 17.16.012(F). 00Section 3. The applicant appealed the Commission's denial to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant (U modified his plans for the court and submitted the modified plan' W to the Council at its hearing on the appeal on February 24, 1986. m Upon opening the hearing, the Council determined that the applicant Q had modified the plans and that the Planning Commission had not been afforded the opportunity to review the modified plans. For that reason, the matter was referred back to the Commission for reconsideration of the plans, as modified. I, Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed, public hearing to consider the revised plan on May 20, 1986. After considering the evidence, both written and oral, the Commission approved the application. Section 5. At its meeting of June 9, 1986, the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.32.140(c) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code appealed and assumed jurisdiction of the application by a unanimous vote. Section 6. On July 14, 1986, the City Council opened a duly -noticed, de novo public hearing pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.32.190 to consider the application. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. The applicant appeared before the Council and was further represented by his engineer, Douglas McHattie. The hearing was adjourned to a field trip on July 16, 1986 to enable the Council and all interested persons the opportunity to view the site. 10 Section 7. The City Council on July 16, 1986, conducted a field trip to the site which was open to all members of the public. The Council inspected the subject property and observed the following: A. The proposed tennis court location is situated on a slope of a well-defined canyon generally known as Geor- geff Canyon, and would require extensive grading, disturbing a minimum of sixty-five (65) feet of earth from top to bottom, and requiring at least ten feet of cut and fill. B. The proposed tennis court would require construction of a fill slope that would encroach upon and possibly alter natural drainage into a canyon of unknown geologic stability; and, 11' C. The proposed tennis court is located in a presently pristine canyon environment at the convergence of two, existing equestrian trails and seven residential lots and is located two -hundred and thirty (230) feet from the nearest residences. Section 8. The Council resumed the continued public hearing on July 28, 1986, at which time additional evidence was presented to and considered by the Council. Section 9. Section 17.16.012(F) of the Municipal Code provides the discretion to grant a conditional use permit for tennis courts if appropriate under Section 17.32.060, subject to certain minimum conditions: "F. Tennis courts and paddle tennis courts and any other fenced, paved area used for recreational purposes (hereinafter 'courts'), providing the following conditions are complied with: 1. The lot or parcel on which the court is to be located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto, 2. The court shall not be located on steep slopes, sides or bottoms of canyons, 3. Courts shall not be located in the front yard, 4. Courts shall not be located within fifty feet of any road or street easement line, 5. Each court must width on all sides for the of landscaping, -2- have an area adequate in maintenance and planting 6. Neither the court nor the landscaping required by subdivision 5 of this subsection shall interfere .11 with the view of the owners of property in close proxim- ity to the proposed court, 7. If grading is required for the construction of the court, cut and fill must be balanced, 8. An adequate drainage system must be incor- porated into the overall plan of the court, which drain- age system must be approved by the City Engineer, 9. A permit will not be granted for the construc- tion of a court which requires excessive grading, 10. The construction of the proposed court shall conform.to the lot coverage limitations set forth in Section 17.16.040, 11. Retaining walls incorporated as a part of the overall plan of the court shall not be greater than four feet in height;" 00 Section 10. The City Council finds that: A. The location of the proposed tennis court is on N the side of and is near the bottom of a well-defined canyon, W generally known as Georgeff Canyon. This canyon runs in a generally south/north direction (uphill to downhill) through CO the middle of the City. Although the steepness of the sides Q of the canyon vary at different locations, the sloping sides meet at a point at the bottom, which is a deep, elongated and well-defined natural drainage course, which serves to drain surface water from the immediate area to a destination outside the City. B. Construction of the tennis court would require extensive grading, in that sixty-five (65) vertical feet of sloped canyon wall would be disturbed, an amount of grading inappropriate for its location immediately above a natural drainage course; C. The location of the proposed tennis court is situ- ated in close proximity to seven neighboring residential properties and the court would be highly visible to and would impair the views of the natural, undisturbed canyon of the persons residing in those homes; D. The proposed tennis court would add approximately seventy-two hundred (7200) square feet of impermeable surface within a canyon, thereby reducing natural absorption of surface water, channeling and thereby increasing the velocity of run-off and otherwise altering natural drainage patterns in the area. Alteration of a natural drainage course is particularly problematic in an area of unknown geologic stability; -3- 12 E. The proposed tennis court would be located in very close proximity to two existing, long-standing equestrian trails. This physical closeness would interfere with use of the trails because the activity on and noise from the court would spook horses, creating a safety hazard. Accordingly, the court would be inconsistent and incompatible with an important, pre-existing recreational activity in that location in the City; F. The location of the court is such that it cannot be adequately shielded from view by any means, including landscaping, and accordingly, would constitute a visual blight in what is now a rural, natural and pristine canyon area; G. Noise from utilization of the tennis court would interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring homes, particularly because the canyon has an amphitheater effect and tends to carry noise upward and further and more loudly than it otherwise would; and, H. The proposed tennis court would disturb the natural habitat of a rural, pristine canyon. Section 11. Pursuant to Section 17.32.060 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the City Council finds that: A. For the reasons set forth in paragraphs A, C, E, F and G of Section 10 above, the proposed tennis court would be incompatible with the surrounding area, homes and uses and would be inappropriate at that location. B. For all of the reasons set forth in Section 10 above, the proposed tennis court would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare and would be inconsistent with the purposes of proper land use.planning set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. C. Grant of the conditional use permit would directly contravene the following provisions of Section 17.16.012(F), which mandates the denial of the permit; 1. Paragraph 2 - the proposed court would be located on the side of a canyon; 2. Paragraph 6 - the court would be highly visible to neighboring properties and would impair views of a presently pristine and undisturbed rural area; 3. Paragraph 9 - the proposed tennis court would require excessive grading; and, 4. Paragraph 11 - the plans show retaining walls in excess of four (4) feet in height - in fact one wall shown on the plans is proposed to be eight (8) feet in height. I 13 D. The proposed tennis court will have significant environmental impacts in the areas of drainage and hydrology, impairment of existing community recreational facilities, noise, geology and disturbance of local habitat, none of which can be adequately mitigated. There is no public benefit from the proposed project that would outweigh these environmental impacts. Section 12. For and on the basis of the foregoing findings, the conditional use permit for Zoning Case No. 323 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11 day of August , 1986. ATTEST: City i UA ly 4TClerk certify that the orecResolution ing 14c.' r o -L %,-0. 5c. adoptee by the City Council of the City of Rolling !;-illls at regular meeting thereof held on the Ilth day of August, IMG by the --:::ollowing vote of the Councii-- 'i, 1! Counci li-:iembers -11'einsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdoc'-. Swanson, Mayor Pernell 'U.- I o�-'�f- O: None Z� z S M , J i : 1,!one City Cler'.