Loading...
VRC MINS 19971204 • APPROVED )p-- JANUARY 8 , 1998 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Sweetnam at 7:04 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Mr. Ken Dyda. PRESENT: Commissioners Boudreau, Black, A. Green, Goern, Long, Marshall, and Vice Chair Sweetnam ABSENT: Chair R. Green was excused Also in attendance were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Principal Planner Rojas recommended that Item 8 be moved to Item 2, as the discussion may affect what is done with the other items on the agenda. Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed the Urgency Ordinance as adopted by City Council, a revised Resolution for VRP 42, a letter from Mr. Hamilton, and a withdrawal letter for VRP 52. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 42- RESOLUTION Principal Planner Rojas began by informing the Commission that the City Council had, at their last meeting, directed that no new decisions be made by the View Restoration Commission, including the adoption of the Resolution, until the amended guidelines are adopted by the City Council. Mr. Rojas recommended to the Commission, in light of this direction, to go through the language of the Resolution and stop short of adopting the Resolution. Principal Planner Rojas also explained that on December 16 the City • 0 Council is scheduled to consider whether to allow the Commission to adopt the Resolution. Project Coordinator Ursu reviewed the revised Resolution, explaining which items had been changed. Principal Planner Rojas added that he had met with Mr. Krasovec and reviewed the tape of the meeting. The changes made to the Resolution were a result of that meeting and the review of the tape. He further explained that the language of the condition stating that all foliage was to be maintained to the view plane was slightly changed. The City Attorney felt that without specific findings relating to specific trees the View Restoration Commission could not, per the Ordinance, order that trees not analyzed by the Commission be trimmed. Per the City Attorney, if the applicants wished trees to be addressed that were not specifically on the application, it would have to be done through a new public hearing. Mr. Felix Krasovec (applicant), 30741 Ganado Drive expressed his concern that the process has taken a long period and trees that were not blocking the view in April, when the process began, are now in the view plane. He further requested that in Item 5 he would like to see the sentence regarding the front yard stricken from the Resolution. Mr. Kean Hamilton (applicant), 30474 Ganado Drive discussed his objections to dealing with Code Enforcement in regards to the trees growing in the view plane. He also asked for clarification as to what the City Council had decided as far as when the new guidelines were adopted, and if this would affect their Resolution. Principal Planner Rojas explained that the City Council had directed that all decisions be put on hold until they had adopted the new guidelines. Mr. Hamilton further stated that he did not feel that what the City Council had decided, as far as a freeze on applications, did not apply specifically to their item. He felt that their intention was to put a freeze on all new cases. Vice Chair Sweetnam responded that staff had specifically mentioned this Resolution at the last City Council meeting, however the City Council did direct a freeze on all decisions made by the View Restoration Commission. He suggested they request through the appropriate channels to speak to the City Council directly at their next meeting if they questioned the City Council direction. Commissioner A. Green commented on the language on page 7 of the Resolution, item 5, beginning with "other foliage". He felt the wording excluded the trees located in the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4,1997 PAGE 2 0 0 foliage owner's front yards. He felt that wording was incorrect and asked it be taken out of the Resolution. Principal Planner Rojas explained that the language reflected the fact that staff had identified several trees in the foliage owner's front yards that currently did not significantly impact the views. Vice Chair Sweetnam responded that the Commission had decided that if a tree did grow into a view plane then it would be significantly impairing a view. Therefore, he felt that the wording should be removed. Commissioner A. Green moved to conceptually approve the Resolution, as amended, and return the Resolution on the Consent Calendar of December 18, 1997 for adoption, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, without objection. Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission that it would be brought back to the Commission on December 18 only if the City Council released the Resolution from the temporary freeze. Vice Chair Sweetnam encouraged the applicants and foliage owners present to attend the December 16 City Council meeting where they could voice their opinions directly to the Council regarding the freeze on their Resolution. NEW BUSINESS 2. VRC GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS (JR) Principal Planner Rojas summarized for the Commission what changes the City Council had requested staff make regarding the Guidelines. The majority of the changes involve the City's view preservation process, which is handled by Code Enforcement. The Commissioners discussed these changes and requested that the amended Guidelines be transmitted to the Commission prior to the next meeting. Mr. Ken Dyda Capeswood Drive, discussed his ideas on view planes, his objection to the City Attorney's ruling that there is no time limit on applications, and some of the foliage owner loop holes in the pre-application consultation process he has observed. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on how bills for tree trimming are submitted to the City and how the money from the trust deposit is paid out. They requested that this issued be clarified in the Guidelines. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4,1997 PAGE 3 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:55 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 9:08 P.M. at which time they reconvened. PROPOSED VIEW RESTORATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (JR) Principal Planner Rojas briefly reported to the Commission that Staff had been contemplating certain amendments to the Ordinance, however the City Attorney is of the opinion that, at this point, there is no need for any amendments to the Ordinance to implement any of the Guideline amendments. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 52: Mr. S. Finazzo, 2175 Rockinghorse Road (EU) Vice Chair Sweetnam reminded the Commission that Mr. Finazzo had submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of his application. Commissioner Boudreau moved to accept the withdrawal of the application, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (7-0). VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 53: Mr. Robert Smith, 31205 Ganado Drive (EU) Vice Chair Sweetnam asked staff if they had a proposed schedule for the applications that were about to be continued. Principal Planner Rojas discussed the proposed schedule with the Commission. Commissioner Black moved to continue VRP NO. 53 to February 19, 1998, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (7-0). VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 54: Mr. and Mrs. Pietro Russo, 2051 Daladier Drive (EU) VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4,1997 PAGE 4 4 I Commissioner Boudreau moved to continue to February 19, 1998, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (7-0). VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 36: Mr. and Mrs. David Wyte, 28417 Covecrest Drive (TN) Commissioner Black moved to continue to February 5, 1998, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (7-0). VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 50: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Cangemi, 30130 Avenida Tranquila (EU) Commissioner Long moved to continue to February 5, 1998, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (7-0). 1. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 48: Mr. and Mrs. Nick Papadakis, 3228 Parkhurst Drive (TN) Commissioner Black requested that Staff redraw the map showing the trees. She felt it was difficult to read and needed to show not only the trees on the application, but all trees on the property. Commissioner Long moved to continue to February 5, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Principal Planner Rojas discussed with the Commission the proposed calendar for December, January, February, and March. He stated a need to meet on December 18 to discuss the amendments to the View Restoration Guidelines and at that meeting the Commission could decide if it would be necessary to meet in January. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Mr. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive discussed the process he has had to go through with his view restoration case and the problems he continues to have with the foliage owners and the City Council. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4,1997 PAGE 5 Mr. Felix Krasovec, 30741 Ganado Drive discussed his experience with Code Enforcement and discrepancies between code enforcement and the View Restoration process. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Long moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:00 P.M. to Thursday, December 18, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4,1997 PAGE 6