Loading...
PC MINS 198409259/g M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes (0q) Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 25, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: BROWN, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE, McNULTY ABSENT: NONE Also present were Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni, Assistant Planner Phyllis Parker, Secretary Ann Brenesell, and Director of Environ- mental Services Sharon Hightower. COMMUNICATIONS: Letter of withdrawal was received for Variance 109; the proposed final Negative Declaration for CUP 93; and a corrected copy of Resolution P.C. 84-24 for Variance No. 108. CONSENT CALENDAR Corrections to the minutes of September 11, 1984 were as follows: Page 2, paragraph #3 should read: separated by one inch and meet the code. Page 2, paragraph #4, Mrs. Wike asked if the deck was built after the house was constructed. Mr. Beattie replied yes. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt the Minutes of September 11, 1984 and Resolution P. C. No. 84-24, approving Variance No. 108 as amended; seconded by Mrs. Ortolan and passed. ROLL CALL: AYES: ORTOLANO, WIKE, VON HAGEN ABSTAIN: BROWN, McNULTY Corrections to Minutes of August 14, 1984 were as follows: Page 1 should read: Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni. Page 7, under Rose Lachman's comments the duplicate sentences beginning with: "She referred to the Educational Code....." were deleted. Page 10; Adjournment was 12:50 a.m. and not 2:50 a.m. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt the Minutes of August 14, 1984 as amended; seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS TRAILS PLAN Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni presented the staff report. Items addressed were: the review of potential crossings at PVDEJBronco, PVDEj Miraleste, and Crest near the Country Meadows, #603X -A05 and the inclusion of the Library trail. He stated that Rolling Hills has designated this trail as a regular equestrian trail and that it has been signed. Staff proposed that it also be included in the network. Mr. Pedroni's report included the Traffic Committee's recommendations which were for crossings, proper lighting and signage, and funding by the Equestrian groups. Mr. Pedroni said there has been interest in donating easements and staff generated some easement acceptance criteria. If an easement, intended to be donated, is along the network or adjacent to it, that easement should be accepted. If the easement does not connect, a system has been set up for review of that easement. There has been communication from Ms. Sunshine relative to items not included in the draft; however, the majority have been included with the exception of a ring near Miraleste High School. An addition is the Equestrian Trail in Tract 37885, near Forrestal Drive and Mainsail. This trail runs adjacent to Ladera Linda where the proposal has been made for a hitching rail and trail. Staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the Draft Trails Plan. A question and answer period ensued centering around reasons for and against development of a trail near Tract 37885, along Forrestal Drive,the purpose of the existing trail, burden on 47 homeowners for an extension which would go no where, etc. Mr. Von Hagen questioned if any precedent for a civic organization funding a traffic light and Director Hightower replied that such had not happened, but it is within the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Brown stated that the draft document shows all proposed trails as conceptual only and mapping does not legally grant their use and they are general in location, not intended to be specific. This is only a planning document, not to be cast in concrete. Jean Longacre, #6 Martingale, supported the Trails Plan as a beginning to the Trails Network System. Mrs. Sararuth M. Grimes, #6 Branding Iron Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, commended the four cities approach. She desired more contoured trails made wide enough for horse and carriage. Shirley Schwarz, #6 Cayuse Lane, represented Palos Verdes Horsemen's Association, who supported the Trails Plan. After being asked about financing for the potential crossing at Crest Road, she replied that it should be funded by outside help and not just horse people as other groups utilize the trail also. Ms. Sunshine, #6 Limetree, Rancho Palos Verdes represented the Palos Verdes Horsemen's Association and presented a map of the Peninsula. She expressed concern about easements existing that were not dedicated to the City; thus not shown in the Draft Trails Plan. She suggested notification of Community Associations when Tract Maps are being heard. Mrs. Ortolano asked if Ms. Sunshine had any suggestions on soliciting citizens for easement donation. PLANNING COMMISSION -2- 9/25/84 2 #603X -A6 Ms. Sunshine said they had a list of potential donations; Bene connect to a trail inside a Homeowner's Association. She said she would like to donate an easement on her property, but it is in a Homeowner's Association. Mr. Pedroni said they could handle this situation in several ways with the help of the Horseman " s Association. If they would be willing to track those trails down, the City staff would help map them someway to perhaps be included in the Plan later. Mrs. Ortolano said she would have no knowledge of a trail except by the Plan and she suggested that the Horseman's Community be vigilant in bringing their trails to the attention of the Commission. Ms. Sunshine said confusion exists on who maintains the trails; thus, it is better to have them donated to the City. Forrestal was mentioned as an example of the City being responsible for maintenance. Ms. Sunshine did not know the Association's position, but the trail that extends down Forrestal is still used to get to the beach. More research is needed to determine if it is a viable loop. Ms. Sunshine could not personally defend the easement at Forrestal Drive, but she said there are some people interested in it. Dr. Brown was concerned with the Crenshaw right-of-way trail. The proposal deals with extending a trail all the way up Crenshaw and on to the surfaced portion of Crest Road. He had a problem with this because a dedicated easement already exists around the Countryside property and asked if there is a need for two trails serving the same function. Dr. Brown said he had a problem with the Crenshaw right-of-way because Del Cerro Park is not designated as a horse facility, it is designed as a passive park. Ms. Sunshine said it does now have designated areas for horses. Dr. Brown said he was not aware of it and clarification was needed. Ms. Sunshine said it was approved by the Parks and Recreation Committee. Dr. Brown clarified that the trail is a dedicated easement around the Country- side, even though it has not been improved, the easement is dedicated solely for that purpose whereas, going up the Crenshaw right-of-way is NOT a dedicated trail easement. Ms. Sunshine said the difference is that one is a legal right -of -Way and one is a physical right-of-way. If the physical right-of-way, is lost funds may not be obtainable to create a physical right-of-way in the legal right-of-way. It is a long steep trail and it would be expensive to develop. The Trails Network Draft says the City does not have the money to create any of these trails and they are trying to work with legalizing the existing pathways. Don Owen, Cayman Development Company, P. 0. Box 2099, Rancho Palos Verdes, limited his comments on the proposed bridle trails as they related to the Island View Development. He quoted from the General Plan and gave a brief history of events leading to approval of the development. He felt the question of bridle trails should have been approached before the development was PLANNING COMMISSION -3- 9/25/84 #603X -A10 approved. he felt it inappropriate after the Tract Map was recorded and approved. He suggested that pedestrian and bicycle trails are not compatible with horse trails and proposed that these horse trails be eliminated from the Trails Plan. Dr. Brown said trails were discussed relative to Island View, but bridle trails were below the Tract as it abutts to Filiroum property and across from the Presley Tract. He agreed with Mr. Owen's comments. Dr. Brown also raised concern whether the Ranch Homeowner's and S&S Homeowners did not want horse trails. Mr. Owen indicated that at the time the Ranch was developed, provisions were made for bridle trails serving approximately 105 lots and after selling 139 homes, no one had a horse. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes represented Filiorum Corporation and Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association. He raised objections and opposed the trail plan. Relative to the Filiorum property he was concerned about safety across the canyons and thought that the topography was inappropriate. He questioned why a trail along Narcissa was not being developed. He did not think Filiorium should be burdened with two of the largest trails. Mr. Pedroni stated three letters had been received in opposition to a trail in that area. Staff had been trying to satisfy a need to connect the Pony Club to that area. Mr. Burrell was concerned with making a promise to citizens that this will be completed at some future time and the only method to consider it effectively is to exact to high a price out of an adjoining property owner for something that is a recreational benefit to folks not within one community; he thought there was question of fairness. Dr. Brown asked if there was any other alternative to providing a trail to a site and to link up with others. Mr. Burrell said he did not entirely disagree with staff's recommendation, but he could not think of a viable alternative. Mr. Burrell also represented the Palos Verdes Park Home Association and aired concerns relative to Del Cerro Park being designated for horses since it is a passive park. He also expressed concern for safety. He felt there is not a safe method to provide horse trails and prohibit motorcycles from getting through the barricade. If the trail is opened for horse traffic, residents will be subjected to a safety hazard. He did not feel it was fair to the homeowners. He did not buy into a horse area. The General Development Plan for the development was designated for a bike path in that area. It is not appropriate to take this area that was an area designated for park area and nature studies and make it a park for horses. He suggested going around on trail #6. Ms. Sunshine stated that the horse people do not wish to interfere with the developers and indicated that the likelihood of horse traffic increasing because of the passage of the Trails Network Plan is fairly remote. The patterns of where the people ride are fairly well established. She supported the barrier at the top of Crenshaw. PLANNING COMMISSION -4- 9125%84 t� #603X -All Mr. Von Hagen referred to the suggestion of carrying Trail #6 up to those existing easements and running those close to the intersection of Crest and Crenshaw and back on to Crenshaw. Is that a logical alternative, he asked. Ms. Sunshine agreed it was a good route if one had the money to do it. Though, it is not a place where the people are riding now. Dr. Brown reiterated and capusuled the concerns as follows: 1) Question of Forrestal extension 2) Trails 417 & 13a 3) Narcissa Area 4) Easements not dedicated to the City, but dedicated for equestrian use. 5) Pony Club 6) Del Cerro Park He suggested discussion of each item individually. Dr. Brown had a question relative to easements not dedicated to the City and yet okayed by the owner. He thought they could be dealt with by meeting the criteria and then be considered as possible linkages in the network. Mrs. Ortolano supported the Forrestal extension because it is a flat 1/2 mile; it is dirt and abutts against the cliffs and the builder had no problem with dedicating it to the City. Once the development is built, the same situation will exist as Mr. Owen's situation. Mr. McNulty did not care either way. He disagreed with comments rel tive to lamenting horses# but felt now is the time to zaz`�C Mrs. Wike agreed now is the time to do it. It should not be left out if there is a potential for a trail there in the future. Mr. Von Hagen supported the extension based on the fact that the developer had no problem with it. Dr. Brown had a problem because of the maintenance for the homeowners. The consensus of the Commission was to add the extension along Forrestal. PONY CLUB. Dr. Brown said homeowners object to horses on the private road of Narcissa. The question then is to keep it as proposed, or delete it. Mr. McNulty was upset with this community not wanting horses on their street when they have the most horses in the area and felt it unfair for the developer of Filiorum property. PLANNING COMMISSION -5- 9/25/84 #603X-Al2 Mrs. Ortolano thought the letter was not an objection to horses, but that it pointed out a safety hazard; too much car traffic along with horse traffic. She suggested separating the two. This plan will not get the horses off the street. She did not think the Commission should ignore the safety problem and if this is a planning document, she supported the proposed plan for getting the horses behind the houses, recognizing the Commission would work with the developer. Dr. Brown suggested leaving it as it is and hoped the criteria would solve the problem. Mr. Von Hagen felt Narcissa was the logical route even though it did not fit the criteria. He thought it was obviously an equestrian community as there is equestrian traffic on many of the streets already. Thus, it is a logical and safe route to link the Pony Club with the trail network. He thought alternate routes were questionable. He agreed with Mr. Burrell's point about negotiations to lay out alternative routes. He was in favor of leaving it as proposed. Mrs. Wike said she was aware of resident concern about the horses on the streets. Dr. Brown raised concern about people returning to the Commission during the time of a development and requesting trails. The Commission would like to accomplish a trail at the rear of the homes IF THE CRITERIA OF SAFETY IS MET; interests must be balanced. CRENSHAW RIGHT-OF-WAY Dr. Brown said #13a, #17 and #7 were inter - and DEL CERRO PARK twined with each other. He agreed with Mr. Owen's comments and raised objections to designating trails #13a and #17. Moreover, he felt it unrealistic to think of putting a crossing on Crest, a four lane road with speed of 45/50 mph, for horses. He did not agree with the Traffic Committee's recommendation. He had also heard from several sources that residents of the Ranch and S&S property were opposed to horses. He thought it was absurd to place a linkage where people do not even want horses. He said Trail #6 is a DEDICATED EASEMENT. He was concerned about the linkage to Rolling Hills. He said there was no letter from staff to Rolling Hills, as the Planning Commission had suggested, about this concern. He proposed removing 17 and 13a from the Trails Plan. Mrs. Ortolano said regarding the rumors about opposition to horses, she was not in agreement. She was concerned about the gap that would be created in the system with the deletion of 13a and 17. She suggested further study and a "walk through" of the area. Mr. Von Hagen was reluctuant to delete 13a and 17 because he felt it was of paramount importance to the overall linkage. He was NOT CERTAIN X66 was passable as a trail or if it had the capacity of being developed. He, there- fore, recommended further study. PLANNING COMMISSION -6- 9/25/84 #603X -A13 • • Mr. McNulty did not feel the Commission had the power to ask the developer of "The Island View" Tract to rededicate his property for horse trails at this time. He thought the time would have been at the original public hearings. He, therefore, was in favor of eliminating #13a and 417. Mrs. Wike had a problem visualizing added trails along Crest. She was concerned about the lack of representation from the Ranch area. Thus, she had no problem deleting #13a and #17. It w^s the &M -as of the Commission to eliminate #13a. Number 17 was held over for future study. The matter was tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Pedroni was asked to present in the staff report the pros and cons of removing 17 and 3 (that portion next to 6) and other background information the Commission required. Mr. Von Hagen stated that points of egress are not marked clearly, especially on the easements. RECESS RECONVENED 10:30 p.m. 10:45 p.m. VARIANCE NO. 110 The staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Phyllis Parker. Photographs were distributed for the Commission's considera- tion. Alternatives were then discussed. Ms. Parker said by pivoting the structure 5 degrees east, the encroachment would be decreased by 2 feet. Another alternative would be to reduce the size of the proposed structure so as to meet all code requirements. The applicant's have agreed to rotate the house and a letter was attached verifying this fact. Discussion ensued relative to alternatives on altering the size of the house; the square footage, the rear setback, and eliminating the balcony. Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. Stephen Stewart, 4164 Maritime Road, Rancho Palos Verdes represented the Portuguese Bend Homeowner's Association for Tract 416540 in opposition to Variance 4110. He gave a brief history and was opposed to the setback and size as not being compatible with the neighborhood. Dr. Brown stated that the City does not enforce CC&R's. Lorna Morris, 4105 Sea Horse Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes was also opposed to Variance No. 110 and said the construction of the house would interfere with her view. She spoke about the house being incompatible with the neighborhood. She asked for the Commission to establish some consistency. Dr. Brown asked it she knew the square footage of the proposed house. PLANNING COMMISSION -7- 9/25/84 #603X -A14 11 Mrs. Morris did not. is Dr. Brown said that even if the applicant met the CC&R requirement of 12 feet height, the applicant would "# be interfering with her view. �o/qla� The additional square footage is a substantial difference in view impairment. Mrs. Morris said if it was setback more, or one story, it would not interfere with her view. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown moved to adopt Resolution P. C. No. 84-25 approving Variance No. 110. The rationale was as follows: Dr. Brown did not think the proposal was out of step with the neighborhood. Mrs. Wike spoke about the back area on the lot and the balcony extending into the front setback. She was opposed to approving Variance 110 since she believed the house could be redesigned to give up some yard space.--¢-c ROLL CALL: AYES: McNULTY, VON HAGEN, BROWN NOES: ORTOLANO, WIKE CONDITIONAL USE Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented PERMIT NO. 93 the staff report and stated that the request was for a 2 -story, 3,300 square foot Mausoleum which would involve retain- ing walls with compacted fill. He said no new roads were proposed. He said the Environmental Assessment addresses the environmental issues. Staff recommended adopting Resolution P. C. No. 84-26 approving Conditional Use Permit 93 and the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment $455. Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. With no one to speak to this item; Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown recommended changing Condition #4 of the Exhibit A to read "at a later date prior to City's acceptance their 15 year Master Plan..." Mr. McNulty moved to adopt Resolution P. C. No. 84-26 approving Conditional Use Permit 93 and the Final Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment #455 as amended. Seconded by Dr. Brown and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT 11:40 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION -8- 9/25/84 S #603X -A15