0732RESOLUTION NO. 732
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF
RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED 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. In 1991,'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 corrected version
of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21,
1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and
approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case No. 461 on February 1,
1992.
Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject
case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March
9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11,
1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, March 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. On May 26, 1992, the City Council approved the
applications in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 679.
In 1993, the City was informed that the retaining wall and sports
court that were reconstructed were not built according to plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 732
PAGE 2
The approved plans show a 100 foot long 4 -foot high retaining wall
and a 2,550 square foot court, whereas, the "as built" retaining
wall is 118 feet long and the sports court is 5,760 square feet.
On September 17, 1993, the City requested that the property owner
reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make
application for a modification to the approved Variance and
Conditional Use Permits. The property owners did not comply.
Section 6. On November 9, 1993, the City sent a notice of a
hearing set by the City to consider the revocation or modification
of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This
notice was sent by first class mail. The Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider revocation or
modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on November
16, 1993 and December 21, 1993, and at a field trip visit on
December 11, 1993. The applicant was present at these three
hearings.
Section 7. On January 15, 1994, the Planning Commission
revoked the permits in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution
No. 94-1.
Section 8. On February 14, 1994, the applicants filed an
appeal regarding the revocation to the City Council. On February
18, 1994, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to
consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and
Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by
first class mail. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance
and Conditional Use Permit on March 1, 1994. The applicant was
present at the hearing.
Section 9. Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permits a revocation or modification of a Variance,
Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review on one or more of the
following grounds: (1) that the approval was obtained by fraud, or
that the applicant made a materially false representation on the
subject application; or (2) that the Variance, Conditional Use
Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is
being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of
the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or
(3) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal
nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised in
violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or (4) that the use
for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly
related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health
and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance.
r
RESOLUTION NO. 732
PAGE 3
Section 10. Pursuant to Section 17.58.010(A)(2), the City
Council finds that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were
exercised contrary to and in violation of the following conditions
of approval:
A. Condition F, Section 11 of City Council Resolution No. 679
requires that the structural lot coverage not exceed 8,663 square
feet or 4.9% and that the total lot coverage not exceed 22,905
square feet or 12.9%. After reconstruction of the court, the
structural lot coverage is 11,873 square feet or 6.71% and the
total lot coverage is 14.7% exceeding structural and total lot
coverage requirements and in violation of Condition F.
B. Condition H, Section 11 requires that the area graded for
the court not exceed 2,550 square feet (rectangular in shape and 30
feet wide by 100 feet long, according to the Development Plan).
The area graded for the court is 5,760 square feet, of irregular
shape, and up to 49 feet wide by up to 133 feet long exceeding the
approved plans by 3,210 square feet in violation of Condition H.
C. Condition I, Section 11 requires that any grading for the
court preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features
to the greatest extent possible. Excessive retaining wall
construction and excessive grading that more than doubles the size
of the approved court is in violation of Condition I.
D. The approvals permit the encroachment of a 100 foot long,
4 -foot high retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35)
foot side yard setback. The "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet
long, 18 feet longer than the wall approved and in violation of
Condition V of City Council Resolution No. 679.
E. The "as built" sports court violates policies of the Land
Use Element (Page 16) and the Open Space and Conservation Element
(Page 15) of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Section
17.46.010) to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve
existing mature vegetation in that grading for the court was
excessive.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City
Council hereby revokes the Variance to permit the reconstruction of
a 100 foot long, 4 -foot high retaining wall that will encroach into
the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet and the Conditional
Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1994.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 732
PAGE 4
ATTEST:
MARILYN�KEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 732 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF
RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS
COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
on March 14, 1994 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Swanson, Pernell, f-?ayor Pro Tem Leeumenburph
and Payor Murdock
NOES: 13one
ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer
ABSTAIN: None
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the
following:
Administrative Offices
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
1