Loading...
VRC MINS 19940804 110 411 APPROVED ee 9/15/94 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Cartwright, Eastwood, Goern, Scala, Sweetnam, Weisz and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Commissioners Boudreau and Green. Also present were Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru and Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson. The flag salute was led by Commissioner Goern. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Administrator Petru distributed to the Commission two letters; the first was one from Edward Forgeron to his neighbor regarding trimming trees for views. Staff will note that it has been received by the City and will file the letter in the appropriate address file. The second one was from Dr. Kunkel, regarding street trees. Staff has had numerous interactions with Dr. Kunkel in the last couple of months and Staff will prepare a response to Dr. Kunkel's letter explaining the process for a street tree permit and will provide copies for the Commission at a subsequent meeting. Ms. Petru stated that the minutes from the Joint City Council/View Restoration Commission meeting of June 30, 1994 had been adopted by the City Council with no changes. Chairman Clark asked Staff if the minutes of June 30 could be changed, if requested, to reflect the Commission's input at the meeting. Ms. Petru responded that she understood that the City Council had jurisdiction over the content and form of these minutes. Chairman Clark emphasized that the meeting was a "joint" City Council/View Restoration Commission meeting, and as such, felt that the Commission should have the opportunity for input into the final form of the minutes. Chairman Clark suggested if there are any areas of the minutes that any individual Commissioners feel need correction, that their concerns be recorded and submitted to the City Council. Chairman Clark referred to page 3 of the draft minutes of June 30, 1994 and stated that what was not reflected was the rationale that went with the position of multiple view areas. Chairman Clark expressed his desire to see that position recorded. 410 There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the View Restoration Commission's legal right to adopt minutes from a joint workshop. Chairman Clark suggested that the City Attorney be invited to a future View Restoration Commission Meeting and speak on the subject of these minutes. Staff reminded the Commission that the City Attorney would be invited to attend a Commission meeting to discuss the View Restoration Commission Guidelines and perhaps can also include the subject of the minutes. The City Attorney would either be Carol Lynch, Deborah Hakman or Michael Coluntuono. Discussion continued among the Commission about the definition of "viewing area" with Commissioner Sweetnam taking the lead in advocating the need for "multiple viewing areas" , for View Restoration Permits. Commissioner Weisz stated that the effect of allowing only one viewing area may well cause the Commission to reject an application on the grounds that the view that the applicant would be trying to restore is not in the "best and most important" viewing area. Commissioner Sweetnam stated he did not think that was the intent of the Ordinance. Commissioner Clark suggested to the Commission that they come back to the agenda and leave the subject of "viewing area" for now. Chairman Clark thanked Staff for distributing copies of the Fences, Walls & Hedges Ordinance and stated that it is a separate ordinance adopted by the City Council in 1990. He asked Staff if this ordinance was included in the new Development Code. Planning Administrator Petru responded that this Ordinance is already codified into the Development Code. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of July 21, 1994. Commissioner Weisz moved and Commissioner Eastwood seconded the motion to approve the minutes of July 21, 1994. The motion passed unanimously (8-0) . DISCUSSION OF REMAINING KEY ISSUES Non-Binding Arbitration Process Alternative Commissioner Eastwood distributed to the Commission his summary on non-binding arbitration and reviewed the summary with the Commission. Commissioner Black stated that if the landowner with the trees is not willing to speak to their neighbor or is unwilling to trim any trees, then she did not think that the non-binding arbitration process would work. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1994 PAGE 2 !II 110 • Commissioner Sweetnam commented that by the time an applicant would come to the city, he would have already exhausted all attempts to talk to their neighbor, so he agreed with Commissioner Black that non-binding arbitration would not work. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he thought that non-binding arbitration was a more expensive process to consider and agrees that it is a wonderful concept, but would not be practical. Commissioner Weisz commented that he agreed with Commissioner Cartwright and added that an intelligent foliage owner can adopt a course of stubbornness and probably will in 90% or more of the cases. He continued to say that if there was going to be cooperation, it would have occurred before the property owners are forced to come to the City. The chances of success are so small with non-binding arbitration that it would not justify the probable expense. Chairman Clark suggested that non-binding arbitration be tried on a temporary basis, as another tool for the City to resolve view conflicts, subject to the City Council's approval. Commissioner Scala stated that he thought non-binding arbitration could be effective, once the Commission starts to hear cases. Chairman Clark stated that he does not want to completely discount this process and suggested that the Commission reflect on this matter and make a recommendation to the City Council at a future meeting. Visiting Both the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's Property Commissioner Scala presented his report, stating that there may be some special circumstances where the Commission should visit both parties' houses. However, Commissioner Scala suggested that generally, the Commission should visit the applicant's house only, unless specifically requested by the foliage owner. Commissioner Clark asked if the City Council suggested or decided that the View Restoration Commission would visit both the applicant and foliage owner sites. Commissioner Weisz stated that his recollection was that the City Council directed the Commission to visit both sites. Commissioner Weisz continued to say that one of the reasons for this change to the Guidelines was to address a perceived imbalance in the position of the applicants over the foliage owners. The Commission has been viewed as being "applicant orientated", rather than being more sympathetic to the foliage owners. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1994 PAGE 3 • 410 110 Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff on the subject of whether or not the Guidelines should be modified to require site visits to both the foliage owner and the applicant. Commissioner Sweetnam suggested that when visiting the foliage owner to complete their Staff Report, Staff should ask them if they want the Commission to visit their property. Chairman Clark agreed that when Staff conducts the preliminary visit, that question should be asked of the foliage owner. Commissioner Sweetnam moved, seconded by Commissioner Goern, require Staff during their preliminary site visit, to ask the foliage owner whether they want the Commission to visit their property prior to the hearing. There being no objection, Chairman Clark so ordered. Hedges Commissioner Black presented her report on hedges stating that the Development Code Section 17.42 pertaining to hedges is not well worded. She continued to say she had to read it several times before she was able to make sense of it. She stated that there was a conflict between the Development Code and the View Restoration Commission regarding the hedge height limitation. Staff is recommending that if a hedge is over 6 feet, then it is a code enforcement case. If it is under 6 feet then it is under. the View Restoration Commission jurisdiction. However, Ms. Black stated that she did not understand how Staff's recommendation would work. Planning Administrator Petru responded that the height of the hedge was relative to the ridge line of the house where the hedge is located. If the hedge is higher than the ridge line, then it would be subject to View Restoration. The Commission could require a hedge, to be trimmed lower than 6 feet in order to restore a view. However, if the top of the hedge is lower than the ridge line, and the hedge is greater than 6' , then it would be subject to the Fence, Wall & Hedges criteria and would not be dealt with by the View Restoration Commission. Chairman Clark stated that this distinction in the code is easier to illustrate with a drawing than it is to explain in words. Discussion followed among the Commission and Staff regarding this issue. Chairman Clark directed Staff to develop some clarifying language to add to the guidelines to indicate where the View Restoration Commission has jurisdiction vs. the Staff with regards to hedges. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1994 PAGE 4 410 41O Use of Soils Engineers, Arborists and Landscape Architects Commissioner Weisz stated that the Commission considered this matter over a year ago, and rejected it. It was then presented tothe City Council at a September 1993 joint workshop and they rejected it as well. Commissioner Weisz continued to say that he generated a memo on this subject dated June 16, 1994 in which he recommended that the use of such high priced professionals should be subject the discretion of this Commission. Commissioner Weisz stated that the previous staff report referred to damage to the aesthetic value of the foliage resulting from View Restoration action. He continued to say that his position is that these matters should be the responsibility of the foliage owner who created the problem. In September of 1993, Gail Lorenzen wrote a report about this subject, citing the fact that the use of specialists could be used by vindictive foliage owners to further incumber the applicant with higher costs. Commissioner Weisz added that he believes that this is a real issue. However, he did agree that some removal or replanting at the applicant's expense should considered on a case by case basis. He felt that the need for these professionals is not very well supported by the Staff's arguments. The basic decision as to whether foliage should be removed to restore the applicant's view rests with the Commission and not with any combination of consultants. Commissioner Weisz said he recommends that the proposal for the use of soils engineers, arborists and landscape architects be rejected as it was previously. Chairman Clark responded that Staff should draft language to add to the Guidelines allowing the Commission to determine, on a case by case basis, whether the use of a soils engineer, arborists and landscape architect is appropriate, at the applicant's expense. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS The Commission requested that the City Attorney attend a future meeting to discuss various issues associated with the Commission's Guidelines. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (REGARDING NON-AGENDA ITEMS) There were no audience comments. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1994 PAGE 5 410 1. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Sweetnam moved, seconded by Commission Weisz to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the View Restoration Commission of August 18, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. (a:VRC#1-MIN8.4) VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1994 PAGE 6