Loading...
VRC MINS 19940818 APPROVED 410 411\\\\\\\ 9/15/94 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUGUST 18, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7: 05 PM by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Eastwood, Green, Scala, Sweetnam, Weisz and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Commissioner Goern and Vice Chairman Cartwright. Also present were Planning Administrator, Carolynn Petru, and Recording Secretary, Helena Eudave' . The flag salute was led by Carolynn Petru. ITEM IV ON AGENDA: COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Clark asked Planning Administrator Petru (who shall be referred to as Staff herewith throughout these minutes) if they had received any Communications and Staff responded that nothing had been received since the agenda packet went out. He then asked if any of the Commissioners had received any correspondence they would like to report. The Commission had no correspondence to report. ITEM V ON AGENDA: DISCUSSION OF DRAFT GUIDELINES Chairman Clark noted that the Commission had received a Memorandum from Staff dated August 18, 1994, Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines. Staff reported that due to the Ocean Trails Project they had been unable to draft a more thorough set of Draft Guidelines for the Commissions' review. Staff stated that they were hopeful that they would have more time to devote to the Guidelines for the next meeting. In addition, they were endeavoring to have the City Attorney meet with this Commission at the first meeting in September. Chairman Clark then suggested that the Commissioners 'walk' through the draft Guidelines as they now stand to see if there were any comments or discussion on any issues. Commissioner Weisz referred to II. Definition of Terms (Page 1 of Draft Guidelines) Paragraph 2, line 1, where the word "off" should be changed to "on" . Staff agreed. Commissioner Weisz went on to say that since these exact topics are addressed in the Development Code, the words should be identical. Staff indicated that they attempted to make it identical with the proposed Development Code Revisions that the Planning Commission was currently considering. However, Staff will double check to make sure the language is • V.R.C. Minutes August 18, 1994 consistent. Chairman Clark inquired if anyone else had any comments on Page 1 of the Guidelines. He did notice that the term "far view" now included the language that was discussed at the joint workshop with a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sweetnam stated that he was uncomfortable with the term "off-shore islands, " since it seemed redundant. Commissioner Black assured him that terminology was correct. Commissioner Weisz made a comment that these Guidelines need to corroborate the Planning Commissions Height Variation Guidelines. Both documents need to be identical and at present they are not. Staff responded by saying that the next order of business after these Guidelines are completed was to revise the Height Variation Guidelines. Chairman Clark then proceeded to Page 2 and asked for any proposed changes from the Commissioners. Commissioner Sweetnam referred to III. Decision Criteria the last sentence of Paragraph 1, which read, " . . .a Covenant to Protect Views. " and asked for the origin of this amendment. Staff reported that this was an amendment suggested by the City Attorney. The reasoning was that if an applicant has their view restored they, in turn, should be required to trim their trees on their own property if they impair a view. A discussion ensued regarding the City's Covenant to Protect Views. Commissioner Sweetnam stated that the Ordinance treats everyone equally, whereas the Covenant does not treat people equally. He continued by stating that by adding the Covenant, this would weaken the City's position because it creates the impression that if somebody has not asked for view restoration, they do not have to trim their own trees to protect the views of their neighbors. He felt that the Covenant muddies the water and, therefore objected to it. Chairman Clark stated that he felt the requirement puts the residents in a more legally binding position if they sign the Covenant, rather than relying on the enforcement of the Ordinance. Page 2 411 • V.R.C. Minutes August 18, 1994 Commissioner Scala asked Staff if they felt that the Covenants that had been recorded to preserve views were effective? Staff explained that in adopting the Height Variation Guidelines, the City Council put forth a policy that the landowner be given a choice to either trim any foliage that impairs a view or file a Covenant when adding 120 sq. ft. or more of habitable space or if adding a viewing area such as a balcony or deck on their property. The Covenant acts as an extra insurance policy, if you will, for the City, so that when a resident signs, they are put on notice as to the requirements of the Code. In addition, it is part of the deed, so any future owners are also put on notice. In answer to Commissioner Scala's specific question, Staff indicated that although there has been less than a dozen requests to enforce the Covenants since they have been in existence; generally there has been no difficulty in gaining compliance. Commissioner Sweetnam then expressed his concern that those landowners who have Covenants are obligated to abide by it's requirements, whereas those who do not are not obligated to abide by the rules. Staff responded that the Covenant is with the City. The City can still enforce the Covenant even if the Ordinance is abolished for some reason. Chairman Clark asked if there was some mechanism to abolish the Covenants. Staff will research the matter. Commissioner Scala expressed his belief that when someone obtains a View Restoration Permit to restore their view, they should not be allowed to block someone else's view. Commissioner Sweetnam expressed the idea that the resident who has to pay for the trimming of trees blocking his view on another's property, must then also pay for his own trees that are blocking the view of the person above him. Commissioner Sweetnam felt that this double financial cost was unfair. Staff pointed out another alternative, in which the person applying for the View Restoration permit would also agree to have Staff perform a View Analysis on their property and require any foliage blocking views to be trimmed as a condition of filing a View Restoration permit, in lieu of filing a Covenant. Chairman Clark stressed that what the Commission was trying to do was to harmonize the application of View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance with the Planning Commission's activities regarding view issues. Commissioner Weisz expressed his concerns with the constraints put Page 3 !II 110 V.R.C. Minutes August 18, 1994 upon the applicant. He feared that the requirements were becoming quite burdensome, which will eventually filter out all of the applicants for View Restoration. Chairman Clark answered that if a resident was interested in protecting their view by the removal of foliage that impairs their view, that from a consistency and equity standpoint, they should be required to take care of their own trees, in order to allow others the same privilege of enjoying a view. Chairman Clark asked that Staff draft language that would provide the same option that residents could sign up with a Covenant or subject themselves to a Staff investigation and review of their foliage. Chairman Clark asked Staff to discuss with the City Attorney the option for residents to take either approaches: to sign a Covenant or to submit to a Staff site Inspection visit. After much discourse among the Commissioners, Chairman Clark asked that they hold their questions until the City Attorney visits this Commission. Commissioner Sweetnam asked if this meant that there was a hold on Item 1 at the bottom of Page 2 of the Guidelines. Chairman Clark said yes, that would be addressed later. Chairman Green asked regarding B. Viewing Area on Page 2, and Chairman Clark responded that this was still an area of major contention. When Commissioner Weisz reiterated that the language of Section B was not in accord with language of the Development Code, Staff indicated that only the language in bold type was in Code language, Items 1 through 4 below was this Commissions' interpretation of that language. Chairman Clark said once again that this must be taken up with the City Attorney. Chairman Clark asked for any comments on Page 3 . Staff referred to Item 2 , where it discussed, "Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet. . . " and felt it might be helpful to have a sub-item explaining that 16 feet is measured from the building pad. Chairman Clark concurred. Chairman Clark then asked for comments on Pages 4 and 5, where Commissioner Weisz asked Staff what were the new time restraints from time of application. Staff answered that the time restraints for the City to take action on an application. Staff indicated that the City must take action within 90 days from the date that the application was deemed complete. Chairman Clark asked Staff where the application fees are covered in the Guidelines. Staff responded that they are established by Council resolution and are not included in the Guidelines. Clark Page 4 411 V.R.C. Minutes August 18, 1994 asked Staff to include language in the Guidelines regarding the application fee concept. Chairman Clark went on to Pages 6 and 7 where he asked if Staff had modified the View Preservation language. Staff answered that they did not have the opportunity to work on this language to make clearer, as discussed in previous meetings. Chairman Clark suggested that Staff, Commissioner Sweetnam and himself take a further look at Item V on Page 7. He then referred to Page 8 and asked for comments. There were none. Chairman Clark asked Staff if there were any items not included areas in the draft Guidelines that should be added. Staff indicated that they would review the Key Issues List and include any appropriate item draft of the Guidelines. ITEM VI ON AGENDA: ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF: Other than the draft Guidelines, none. B. COMMISSION: Commissioner Scala asked if there was to be a follow up on three cases the Commission previously took action on which resulted in foliage removal. Commissioner Scala volunteered to visit with the residents associated with the cases. Chairman Clark replied it would be premature at this time to take such action and felt that this should be reviewed with the City Council before moving forward. ITEM VII AUDIENCE COMMENTS (re non-Agenda items) There were no audience comments. ITEM VIII ADJOURNMENT Chairman Clark reiterated the Commissions invitation to the City Attorney to attend their next meeting. Commissioner Sweetnam brought up the fact that on the Agenda it states that the next meeting is to be held on September 1, when it had been decided at the previous meeting that it was to be held on September 8 . Staff and Commissioners agreed. Chairman Clark then stated that he would be out of town on that date and that either the Vice Chairman or an Acting Chairman will have to conduct the meeting. Page 5 110 411 V.R.C. Minutes August 18, 1994 Chairman Clark then asked for a motion to Adjourn. Commissioner Sweetnam made that motion with Commissioner Boudreau seconding. With no objections the Commission was duly adjourned at 7:47 PM. The next regular meeting of the View Restoration Commission is scheduled for September 8, 1994 at 7:00 PM at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. (remedy disk-min8.18) Page 6