05726'7
RESOLUTION NO. 572
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IN ZONING CASE NO. 355
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 Yu -Ping
Liu with respect to real property located at No. 39 Crest Road'
00 West, Rolling Hills (Lot 240B -2 -MS) requesting a conditional use
permit for a tennis court on said property.
N Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
W noticed, public hearing to consider the application on January 19
m and February 16, 1988. After considering the evidence, both
Q written and oral, the Commission approved the application.
Section 3. Timely appeals of the Planning Commission
decision were filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17.32.140(B) by Roger and Christa Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West,
and Joseph and Alice 011a, 41 Crest Road West, both owners of
adjoining properties who had raised objections before the
Planning Commission.
Section 4. On April 11, 1988, 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 April 13, 1988 to enable
the Council and all interested persons the opportunity to view
the site.
Section 5. The City Council on April 13, 1988,
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 Liu property is a legal non -conforming lot,
containing less than the required area under the City's
zoning ordinance. The lot is approximately 1.7 acres in
size; the zoned district in which it is located requires two
acres.
B. The location of the proposed court was identified
by flags. The court will be at its closest point, 17 feet
from the residence on the property due to the central
location of the house on the lot. Because of its
subterranean construction, there will be a severe depression
of approximately 11 feet immediately adjacent to the
residence.
C. The court would be located within 75 feet of the
residence at 41 Crest Road West, and within 90 feet of the
residence at 37 Crest Road West.
Section 6. The Council resumed the continued public
hearing on April 25, 1988, at which time additional evidence was
presented to and considered by the Council.
Section 7. 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. Section 17.32.060 requires that as a
prerequisite of issuance of a conditional use permit, the Council
find that issuance of the permit would be consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the zoning ordinance and not
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Section
17.32.050 states that the purpose of the conditional use permit
is to assure compatibility of a use with the uses in the
surrounding area.
Section 8. The City Council finds that:
A. The lot is too small to allow for construction of
a tennis court while at the same time preserving and
maintaining the community objective of a rural atmosphere.
Construction of the court would result in such density of
improvements on the lot as to conflict with the general plan
and zoning ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural,
natural features of the community.
B. The small, nonconforming size of the lot requires
the court to be located very close to the residence, and
requires excavation of a severe depression within only 11
feet of the house, creating a potentially hazardous
condition in close proximity to the home.
C. The proposed court would be located in close
proximity to neighboring residences, creating potential
noise disturbances interfering with the use and enjoyment of
those neighboring homes, particularly because the
subterranean construction of the court will allow the noise
to travel upward to those residences. Although possible
noise mitigating conditions were discussed, none were found
to be practicable or easily enforceable. There is no
question but that noise from use of the court will be
readily and easily audible at the neighboring residences.
D. Construction of the proposed tennis court would be
incompatible with residential uses in the surrounding area
-2-
880509 sas A122.MJ (3)
Jimm
and would result in overdevelopment of the lot inconsistent
with the rural character of the community.
Section 9. Pursuant to Section 17.32.060 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the City Council finds that:
A. For the reasons set forth in Section 8 above, the
proposed tennis court would be incompatible with the
surrounding area, homes and uses and would be inappropriate
at that location.
B. For the reasons set forth in Section 8 above, the
proposed tennis court would be detrimental to the health,
00 safety and welfare and would be inconsistent with the
purposes of proper land use planning set forth in the Zoning
(v Ordinance.
W C. The proposed tennis court will have significant
environmental impacts in the area of noise which cannot be
Q adequately mitigated. There is no public benefit from the
proposed project that would outweigh this environmental
impact.
Section 10. For and on the basis of the foregoing
findings, the conditional use permit for Zoning Case No. 355 is
hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of
May , 1988.
Mayo
ATTEST:
M'14?
City Clerk V
880509 sas A122AJ (3)
-3-
70
The foregoing Resolution No. 572 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A C017DITIONAL USE PERMIT
IN ZONING CASE NO. 355
was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council at a
regular meeting on May 9, 1988 by the followinq vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Leeuwenburqh, Swanson
Payor Murdock
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell