Loading...
VRC MINS 19971218 i - APPROVED 1 JANUARY 8, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chairman R. Green at 7:06 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Principal Planner Rojas. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioner A. Green was excused Also present were Principal Planner Rojas and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved without objection, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas informed the Commission that the City Council had authorized the Commission to adopt the Resolution for VRP No. 42 this evening. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1997 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the Minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Black abstaining since she was absent from the meeting. Commissioner Goern moved to remove Item 2 from the Consent Calendar, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 42 — RESOLUTION Principal Planner Rojas explained that at the last View Restoration Commission meeting there was some language that was at issue. Staff has gone through the language, made the changes, and the Resolution before the Commission this evening is the Resolution with the amended language. He reminded the Commission that the City Council had instructed the View Restoration Commission to adopt the Resolution this evening, however they also instructed that the appeal period not begin immediately. The appeal period would begin once the View Restoration Guidelines have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Rojas pointed out a minor language correction on page 6 of the Resolution. Mr. Kean Hamilton (applicant) 30747 Ganado Drive, expressed the opinion that he did not feel the delay of the appeal period was appropriate, and pointed out the staff report to the City Council did not mention anything about extending the appeal period. Principal Planner Rojas explained that the staff report to the City Council recommended that the appeal period begin immediately after the adoption of the Resolution, and if an appeal is filed, to wait until the Guidelines are adopted before processing the appeal. The City Council however had some concern as to whether the foliage owners were aware of what was happening with the process, and specifically directed the appeal period not begin until the freeze on all applications was lifted. Mr. Felix KrasQveq (applicant) 30741 Ganado Drive, also addressed the appeal period. He did not feel the City Council ordered an extension of the appeal period. He stated there was no motion to extend the appeal period. He also felt that the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement unintentionally misled the City Council when referring to the staff report. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that in regards to the extension of the appeal period there was nothing this Commission could do, as it was a directive from the City Council. He suggested adopting the Resolution and commented the applicants or foliage owners could take their argument regarding the extension of the appeal period back to the City Council. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Boudreau and Long abstaining. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6,1998 PAGE 2 • • Principal Planner Rojas explained that a follow-up letter would be mailed to all of the foliage owners and applicants explaining the Resolution had been adopted and also explain that a freeze had been ordered by the City Council and no further processing would occur on this application until the Guidelines were adopted and direction had been given by the City Council. Commissioner Long did not understand why there was a freeze on the enforcement of cases already approved by the Commission where no appeal was filed. He asked Staff to convey to the City Council their consensus that they are concerned about non- enforcement of applications that are final and unlikely to be affected by any changes in the Guidelines. Principal Planner Rojas explained that there was a freeze on every application, whether through the Commission or Code Enforcement, where the trimming had not occurred. This was done because the issue of retroactive application of the new Guidelines was discussed by the Council but not put to rest. However, Mr. Rojas explained he would be speaking to the City Manager, and possibly allowing some of the cases to proceed. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE VRC GUIDELINES Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission that they had previously approved these Guidelines and forwarded them to the City Council. The City Council suggested some changes, which have been incorporated into this copy of the Guidelines. He also informed the Commission that the City Attorney had requested some language changes and would note them as they reviewed the draft Guidelines. The Commission proceeded to review the Guidelines page by page. Principal Planner Rojas pointed out a correction from the City Attorney on page 5 of the Guidelines. Vice Chair Sweetnam also pointed out a change on page 5 regarding the word "only". Commissioner Marshall pointed out various grammatical errors on pages 6 through 10. Vice Chair Sweetnam noticed inconsistencies in wording and grammatical errors on pages 11, 12, and 13. On page 14, regarding maintenance schedules, the Commission had a lengthy discussion as to whether they could recommend a maintenance schedule or request a foliage owner to trim their foliage below a view plane, and how far their jurisdiction VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6,1998 PAGE 3 0 . extended in ordering either. There was also a discussion regarding what was considered winter months in regards to trimming trees. The Commission agreed to add language that stated trimming shall be performed during the months of November through March. There were several questions and a discussion regarding reimbursement of the money in the trust deposit to the foliage owner after the trimming was complete. The Commission had questions as to whether the foliage owner was entitled to the money in the account if he did the trimming himself. Principal Planner Rojas clarified by saying that, in discussion with the City Attorney, she agreed that a foliage owner could possibly submit a letter to the City stating they had done the trimming and request a refund of the full amount in the trust deposit. Mr. Rojas added that, based on staff experience with estimates and bids, they were finding that the foliage owner was very unlikely to scrimp on the trimming or do it himself. In fact, staff was finding that foliage owners were asking for the most experienced, more expensive contractors do the work. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested adding wording to say upon receipt of the letter and verification of successful completion of the trimming, the full amount of the trust account shall be refunded to the foliage owner. He also suggested adding that if the work was done by the foliage owner, the foliage owner shall forfeit the right of replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies within one year of trimming. There was a lengthy discussion regarding when and if the Commissioners were required to visit the foliage owner's property. The Commissioners felt the wording on page 17 of the Resolution was unclear and directed staff to come up with some wording that would clarify when the Commissioners were required to visit the foliage owner's property. Felix Krasovec 30741 Ganado Drive, suggested sending out a form to the foliage owners that they must sign and return to the City saying that the Commissioners had permission to visit their property. If the foliage owners did not return the form, the Commission could then assume they did not want them to visit the site. Vice Chair Sweetnam noted several minor wording changes on pages 17 through 22. Felix Krasovec asked the Commission if the Guidelines were going to also be used as a guideline for Code Enforcement standards. Principal Planner Rojas answered that the section regarding view preservation in the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6,1998 PAGE 4 III 0 guidelines would apply to code enforcement. Principal Planner Rojas stated that it was now up to the Commission as to whether they wanted to meet on January 8 to review the changes suggested tonight. Commissioner Long moved to continue the item to the January 8, 1998 meeting for further review, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. There being no objection it was so ordered. Principal Planner Rojas stated that, because of the holiday shut down at the city, the earliest the Commissioners would get their packets for the January 8 meeting would be on Monday, January 5. However, if there was delay the packets may not get to the Commissioners until Tuesday, January 6. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Long moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:35 P.M. to Thursday, January 8, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\97MI N 12.18 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6,1998 PAGE 5