0679RESOLUTION NO. 679
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT
OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING
CASE NO. 461.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan
Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the
continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard
setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a
previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the
side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991,
September 17. 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on
September 5, 1991.
Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in
Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the
subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of
the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on
December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning
case back to the Planning Commission to review a c:;:rrected version
of the Development Plan on December 4, 19-91. The Planning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public on January 21,
1992 to consider the corrected version of the Deas„ opment Pian and
approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Cass: No. 46! on February 1,
1992.
Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject
case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992..mhe City Council
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March
9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 2'7, 1992, May 11,
1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, M:ucch 16, 1992 and
April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the
modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a
bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the
concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the
applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a
Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court.
Section 5. The Planning Commission found that the project
will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted
a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
r
RESOLUTION NO. 679
PAGE 2
Section 6. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a
parcel ofProperty to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A is required to
permit the encroachment of 4 -foot retaining walls ten (10) feet
into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The sports court
will not encroach into the twenty-five (25) foot side yard
easement.
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that
do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity
and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the undulating
topography of the lot. The only flat area available to site a
sports court and accompanying retaining walls is on the proposed
relatively flat slope within the side yard setback.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the
subject property. The Variance is necessary in order to permit the
reconstruction of the existing retaining walls. There will not be
any greater incursion into the setback than presently exists. The
Variance will also facilitate a reduction in the size and profile
of the court.
C. Granting this variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located. A -sufficient distance remains between the sports court
and the uses on the adjacent property. The sports court will be
further screened by a sound baffle screen and existing landscaping
as the new court will be lowered and will not be visible from
neighboring properties. Engineering of the retaining walls will
lower their height to the code required four feet and will keep a
substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City
Council hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of
• retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to
• maximum of 10 feet as indicated on the revised Development Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit A and dated May 6, 1992 subject to the
conditions contained in Section 11.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-7
PAGE 3
Section 8. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of
an existing sports court that will be reduced to 2,550 square feet
as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code
provides for the discretion of the City Council to grant a
Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under certain
conditions.
Section 9. The City Council makes the following findings:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a sports
court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the
public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with
similar recreational uses in the community, the area proposed for
the court is already graded and used for such purpose, and the
court will be located in an area of the property where such use
will be least intrusive to surrounding properties.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
and General Plan, because the sports court will comply with the low
profile residential development pattern of the community and is
located on a 5 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size.
shape and topography to accommodate such use.
C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit woul"d be
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
and General Plan, because the sports court will not impact the view
or the privacy of neighbors and will not be visible from
neighboring properties. The sports court will be surrounded by
sound baffle screening and existing landscaping, and the new court
will be lowered and not be visible from neighboring properties.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550
square foot sports court in accordance with the revised Development
Plan attached hereto dated March 6, 1992 for a sports court in
Zoning Case No. 461 subject to the conditions contained in Section
11.
Section 11. The Variance to the side yard setback for the
continued encroachment of a 4 -foot retaining wall, and the
Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court as
indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated March 6, 1992, and approved
in Sections 7 and 10, are subject to the following conditions:
RESOLUTION NO. 679
PAGE 4
A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire
unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as
defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and
Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are
violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given
written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for
a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone
in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked REVISED Exhibit A
dated March 6, 1992 except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
E. The property on which the court is located shall contain
an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all
standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,663 square feet
or 4.9% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall
not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%.
G. All grading required for the reconstruction of the court
shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not
exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards.
H. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550
square fees in size.
I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora
and natural features to the greatest extent possible.
J. A drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall
plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
K. Existing mature shrubs and trees along the east and south
side of the sports court shall be retained and maintained during
the reconstruction of the court.
RESOLUTION NO. 679
PAGE 5
L. A sound baffle screen, along with landscape screening,
shall be provided for the sports court and shall be maintained so
as not to interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding
property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of
community easements. Thr proposed height, design, location and
materials used for the sound baffle screen shall be subject to City
staff review and approval prior to installation.
M. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the
City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the
issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan
submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan
Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and
native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent
feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with
the rural character of the community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of
the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior
to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained
with the City for not less than two years after landscape
installation. The retained bond will be released by the City
Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was
installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that
such landscaping is properly established and in good condition.
N. Court lighting shall not be permitted.
0. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not
be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior
retaining walls shall not be permitted.
P. Noise from persons using the tennis court shall be kept to
a minimum so as not to unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of
persons on surrounding properties.
Q. Noise from court use shall not create a nuisance to owners
of surrounding properties.
R. The sports court shall not be used for purposes of
providing tennis lessons by a tennis professional to persons
outside the immediate family of the owner.
S. A building permit shall be obtained for the retaining
walls and sports court.
RESOLUTION NO. 679
PAGE 6
T. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan
to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and
drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports
that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning
Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must
conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permit.
V. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
W. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit to
Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective.
X. All conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit
approval, except for Condition B, must be complied with prior to
the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1992.
ATTEST:
Cls n.✓
DIANE SA YER, DEPUTITY CLERK
1
f
RESOLUTION NO. 679
PAGE 7
The foregoing Resolution No. 679 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT
OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING
CASE NO. 461.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the City
Council on May 26, 1992 by the.following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Murdock
and Mayor Swanson,
NOES:
Councilmember Leeuwenburgh.
ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer,
ABSTAIN: None.
DEPUTY ,bITY CLERK A