Loading...
9/20/1976r, rij C), MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL (TYDOY11ROLL'ING. HILLS, '"CALIFORNIA September 20, 1976 A special meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Rose at 7030 P.M. Monday, September 20, 1976 at La Cresta School, 38 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL J. i'_ PRESENT ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose None Teena Clifton William Kinley .Tune Cunningham 51 Residents of the PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCE NO. 112 City Manager City Attorney Secretary City of Rolling Hills Mayor Rose opened the meeting of a public hearing to consider Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, California Amending Ordinance No. 33 Entitled "An Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, California Providing for Zoning in Said City." Letters from Kenneth Watts, 1 Wrangler Road; Robert Volk, 13 East- field Drive; and Robert Oo Gose and Elaine Gose, 3 Johns Canyon Road, and petitions signed by twenty five residents, urging that Ordinance No. 112 be retained were received for the file. In a general discussion of the ordinance, Mr. Omer Tingle, owner of property at 13 Bowie Road asked what simpddtQ.other than.;- cost of application for a hearing before the Planning Commission the require- meats of the ordinance would have on residents:. Councilman Pernell said there could be a delay of up to one month because of the legal requirement of notice of hearing in the newspaper. Mr. Tom Wachtell, 35 Crest Road East, asked whether the ordinance had ever been enforced since its adoption in November 1972° Councilman Crocker explained that when the ordinance was adopted it was inadver- tently interpreted as applying to non-commercial recreational uses, excluding residential. Because of increasing controversy caused by construction of tennis courts, all files and records were researched, and it was discovered that the ordinance which required a conditional use permit for swimming pools, tennis courts,uridirig'.r3ngs.;.and'.other non-commercial recreational uses had been adopted and was in effect. Councilman Heinsheimer explained that a public hearing before the Planning Commission was scheduled for Tuesday, September 21 for the purpose of conforming and correcting all such -construction approved since November 1972 without a conditional use permit as required by the ordinance, and that all applications received between the date the ordinance was brought to the attention of the Council and the present time had been subjected to the conditional use permit procedure. Mr. Robert Foulk, 9 Williamsburg Lane, asked whether a decision would be made at the hearing about possible amendment of the ordinance. The Mayor said that residents would be given an opportunity to speak in favor of the ordinance, in opposition, and residents who did not wish to state a preference would be permitted to comment if they wished to do so, but no vote would be taken at the meeting. Mrs. Carole Hoffman, 73 Portuguese Bend Road, asked why an addi- tional step in the procedure required for building or improving Rolling September -20, 1976 Hills properties should be considered, Mr. Harry Gelles, 87 Crest Road East, asked the Council to comment on what factors generated acting on the ordinance rather than rescinding it since it had not been enforced. Mayor Rose explained that the Council had detercr�ined that the matter should be the subject of a public hearing, since tennis courts have become more controversial, and when threatened with litiga- tion by a resident who had experienced opposition to a proposed tennis court, the City's files were thoroughly searched in connection with an attempt to establish a policy, and when the -ordinance was brought to the Council, they decided that a public hearing on the matter was more equitable than simply rescinding or enforcing the ordinance. Mayor Rose asked residents who wished to speak in favor of keeping the ordinance in effect to speak on the matter. Mrs. Rose Rihaczek, 10 Flying Mane Road, asked that the ordinance be retained so residents would have an opportunity to comment if they wished to do so on proposed OC.recreational improvements on private properties, especially tennis courts. Mrs. Suzanne Small, 3 Flying Mane Lane, said she is in favor of keeping a rural atmosphere, and she did not consider tennis courts rural. Mr. Russell Chase, 2 Ringbit Road East, said he was in favor of the princi- ple of the ordinance, as it would give neighbors an opportunity to speak on a proposed recreational facility before it was an accomplished fact. Mr. Ken Watts, 4 Wrangler Road, said that unless a tennis court, swimming pool or riding ring was planned for a side yard or front yard location which require a variance of the zoning ordinance, the facility could be built without the residents who might be most affected being consulted. Mr,. E. L. Pearson, 1 .Johns Canyon Road, said he was Mayor of Rolling Hills when the ordinance was adopted, and he said the intent of theCouncil when the action was taken was that it be applied to community recreational facilities, Mr. Pearson said he had discussed the matter with other residents who were also members of the Council at that time, and they,had concurred with the interpretation. Mr. Pearson said thatsobt`aining a.building permit under existing restric- tions is -a diffi`cult' procedure-; and he suggested that the Council amend Section 3 of the ordinance too "Non-commercial community recreational uses", so the ordinance would no longer be applied to residential recreational uses. If the Council wished to have a con- ditional use permit requirement for residential recreational facilities, Mr. Pearson said a new ordinance should be prepared, public hearings held on the matter, guidelines adopted, to avoid mis-interpreting the meaning of the ordinance. Mr. Wachtell said he'is unegtiivocally"in" favor of amending"the ordinance because of ever more extensive14evels of government. The ability to control development is already avail- able, Mr. Wachtell said, and if the rules are not stringent enough, they should be tightened to eliminate arbitrary judgments after con- siderable expense on the part of the applicant. Mr. Alan Krause, 8 Caballeros Road, said the ordinance was carefully written, and he suggested that application of the ordinance should be amended. Mr. Paul Grubs, 1 Hackamore Road, said he would favor removal of the ordinance. Mrs. Lulu Epstein, 5 E1 Concho, said there are ample guidelines available, and if requirements established by other regu- lations were enforced, if variances were not granted and set -backs required as established, the need for the ordinance would diminish. She said she would favor repealing the ordinance. The Manager displayed a map of the City marked by red dots to indicate existing tennis courts, and Mrs. Clifton explained that at present there are 23 tennis courts and four paddle tennis courts in existence or in process of being constructed. In addition, 26 properties were marked with green dots to indicate that tennis courts are being planned or considered, or residents have expressed some interest in building a tennis court on those properties. -2- September 20, 1976 Mrs. Mary Chase said she did not wish to state that she was in favor of or opposed to the ordinance, but generally felt that a small city such as Rolling Hills must have rules. Dr. Richard Hoffman said he agreed, and stated that discretionary power is dangerous as it grants unnatural power to one neighbor to be used over another neigh- bor. Dr. Hoffman said comments have circulated in the community about proposed restriction of tennis courts south of Crest Road. Mr. Gelles said the ordinance should be repealed and the size of a property used as a guide on whether a conditional use permit is required, since a tennis court on a two acre parcel would bot be as great a problem as a tennis court on a smaller parcel. Dr. David Bray, 9 Quailridge Road South, said the matter has become an emotional issue, and he urged that the integrity of Rolling Hills be maintained by removing arbi- trary powers from the Council, so the people would know where they stand. Councilman Crocker said he does not consider a paved tennis court with a ten foot high fence in the middle of the Flying Triangle consistent with the character of the area. Dr. Bray said the question is not whether a tennis court should be built, but how construction of tennis courts can be stopped. Mr. Wachtell suggested that residents be asked to vote on whether tennis court construction should be per- mitted or prohibited. Councilman Heinsheimer said the ordinance should not be used to confirm a policy, and he said he would not go along with an ordinance which could be used to mask a policy by either the Planning Commission or City Council. Councilman Crocker asked the City Attorney to define the scope of authority of the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Kinley said the Planning Commission is a fact finding body which reports to the Council; the City Council can set policies which are esthetic in nature, as long as such powers are reasonable and non-discriminatory. Councilman Crocker said that in the last election candidates who stated a firm policy on subdivisions and land use and development were elected, and he considers the results of the election an indication of the wishes of the residents. Further, Councilman Crocker said any ordinance now on the books can be rescinded or amended by three votes of the Council. Mr. Dan Burke, 70 Saddleback Road, said that in spite of statements that tennis courts are not consistent with the rural atmosphere of Rolling Hills, brochures on Rolling Hills printed in the 1930's and displayed in the Administration Building show people with tennis rackets. Councilman Heinsheimer said that on ,July 27, 1976 the Planning Commission suggested to the Council that a moratorium be placed on construction of tennis courts effective August 15, and that riding rings and swimming pools be removed from the ordinance, which would have established a policy rather than provide a case by case review. Councilwoman Swanson said the proposed moratorium was for a period of six months to enable the Planning Commission to develop guidelines for implementing Ordinance No. 112. In summary, Mr. Alan Krause urged the Council to consider the presentation of the former Mayor who explained that the intent of the Council on which he served in adopting the ordinance was to apply it to community tennis courts only. Mr. Krause asked that private resi- dential tennis courts be removed from the requirements of the ordi- nance, thereby applying the ordinance in the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Councilman Heinsheimer said he considers the wording of the -3- L September 20, 1976 ordinance very clear, and it was his opinion that the ordinance should be applied as it is written. Mr. Robert Foul% said the element of human judgment or opinion should be removed, since opinions change and human judgment cannot be made law. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 9:30 P.M. and advised that the Council would take the matter under submission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9.30 P.M. to meet at the next regular meeting date on Monday, September 27, 1976 at 7030 P.M. r APPROVED: Mayor 10 City Clerk` ' 195