Loading...
VRC MINS 19971002 0 0 APPROVED NOVEMBER 6, 1 997 (0) CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Principal Planner Rojas. PRESENT: Commissioners Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau and Long were excused Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (6-0) COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed correspondence relating to V.R.P. No. 29. He also updated the Commission on an issue from the August 21, 1997 View Restoration Commission meeting. He explained that at that time there were some questions regarding the minutes of July 24, 1997 and whether or not replacement foliage had been ordered for Mr. Kunkle. He stated the tape of the meeting had been reviewed by Staff and the minutes were clarified to reflect no replacement foliage was required, as was stated in the Resolution. Chair R. Green distributed a thank you note received from Mr. and Mrs. Henry as well as a letter from Mr. Joe Oliveri. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, t997 Commissioner A. Green moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (6-0) 0 0 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 1997 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners A. Green and Marshall abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. DISCUSSION OF THEWORKSHOP Principal Planner Rojas explained that Staff was directed by City Council to prepare a list of the various directives discussed at the meeting and bring that list back to the City Council at a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for November 5, for its review. City Council also wanted that list to be reviewed by the View Restoration Commission. He stated that this item would be put on the View Restoration Commission agenda for discussion November 6, 1997. He explained that the City Manager stated that the directive of the City Council should be taken as policy effective immediately. Therefore, tonight the Commission may take into account the directive given by City Council regarding six month reviews and replacement foliage where privacy and safety were not an issue. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair R. Green requested that Item 6 be heard before Item 5 on the agenda, as at a past meeting there was an indication by the Commission it would hear Item 6 first on the agenda. There was no objection from the Commission 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 36: Mr. and Mrs. David Wyte, 28417 Covecrest Drive. (TN) Principal Planner Rojas began by stating the Commissioners had all received a request for continuance from the applicant due to the Jewish holiday. Chair R. Green asked Staff if the foliage owner or applicant were present at the meeting or if there had been any requests to speak on the item. Principal Planner Rojas answered that the foliage owner and applicants were not present at the meeting and there were no requests to speak on the item. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 2 0 0 Chair R. Green recommended, unless there was any objection from the Commission, to continue the item to the November 6, 1997 meeting. There was no objection from the Commission and it was so ordered. At this point Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested the Commission hear the request for continuance regarding V.R.P. No. 29. If the Commission decided to continue the item, it would be done. If the Commission decided to hear the item, the Commission could then choose to hear it after V.R.P. No. 42. The Commission agreed that was a good idea. Vice Chair Sweetnam recused himself from the discussion regarding the continuance of V.R.P. No. 29. Commissioner A. Green asked Staff how tonight's date for the hearing was chosen. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that tonight's date was chosen because the item had originally been scheduled for September 18. However, that meeting was canceled due to the workshop with City Council. On September 9 she had spoken to both the applicant and foliage owner, and neither party had a problem scheduling the meeting for October 2. No other contact was made with Mr. Escheveretta until staff received the letter for continuance on Friday, September 26. Ms. Nelson explained to Mr. Escheveretta that she did not know if the Commission would grant his request for continuance or not. Chair R. Green felt that there had been ample time for the foliage owner to request the continuance and, even though he would like to have Mr. Escheveretta present at the meeting, he felt the Commission should hear the item. Commissioner A. Green moved to deny the request for continuance and hear the appeal at tonight's meeting, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Approved, (5- 0-1) with Vice Chair Sweetnam recused. Chair R. Green then explained that the Commission would hear V.R.P. No. 42 prior to hearing V.R.P. 29. 5. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT N0. 42: Mr. and Mrs. Kean Hamilton, 30747 Ganado Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Felix Krasovec, 30741 Ganado Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Tom McFadden, 30731 Ganado Drive (applicants); Vivian Yang 3511 Bendigo VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 3 • Drive, Josephine Boss 3519 Bendigo Drive, and Mardell Schlatzlein 3505 Bendigo Drive (foliage owners). (TN) Chair R. Green polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the sites. All Commissioners present had visited the sites. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She stated that staff had identified 56 trees on the three foliage owner's properties and of the 56 trees, 52 created a significant view impairment. She summarized for the Commission the types of trees on the properties and the staff recommendations. Commissioner R. Green opened the public hearing. Mr. Kean Hamilton, 30747 Ganado Drive (applicant) distributed some pictures and diagrams for the Commission to review. He began by explaining he was an original owner and had lived in his home since 1967. At that time the property had a beautiful panoramic view. He commented that he had read the staff report and recommendations and, regarding the Yang property, questioned one of the options that said to leave six pines and lace them heavily. Based on that, he made a rendition of what that lacing would look like if the trees were laced to allow 30% light and 70% light to pass through. With those two options he showed that there were still a lot of trees on the property and a significant amount of view impairment. He agreed with Table 2 in the staff report, except that he was requesting removal and replacement of the Allepo Pines numbers 7 - 12. He did not feel there was any reasonable privacy issue involved. He stated there was a tree on the Yang property that Project Coordinator Nelson may have missed during her site visit. Once the other trees are removed this tree will be blocking his view. He would like some type of language in the recommendations addressing this tree and other foliage that might block the view once the pines are removed. Regarding the Schatzlein property he felt the view would not be restored if the three pines were allowed to remain. He showed the Commission photographs of the pine tree that demonstrated how quickly the tree grew and felt that because of that, the trees would have to be laced at least twice a year. Mr. Tom McFadden, 30731 Ganado Drive (applicant) distributed photographs from 1994 when they first bought the property, and photos taken recently showing their view blockage. He commented that he had read the staff report and was generally in agreement with what staff had recommended regarding the foliage on the Boss property. However, he did not feel the section of the report dealing with the Yang property was consistent with the Ordinance. He felt the applicants had a far view as defined in the Ordinance. He explained his view to the south east was presently blocked by the Allepo pines on the Yang property. He did not feel that removing 6 of VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 4 • I the pines and heavily lacing the other six, as specified in the staff report, would restore their far view. He explained that if you stood directly in front of the trees you could see through them but looking at them from an angle, as was the case from his property, the view was still significantly impaired. He stated he respected all of the foliage owners desire for privacy, however he did not feel the removal of the foliage in question would intrude upon their privacy. Felix Krasovec 30741 Ganado Drive (applicant) began by stating he would like to propose a solution that he felt would allow privacy on the Yang and Boss properties and would allow the trees in question to exceed the height limits stipulated in the Ordinance. He stated that the area they lived in on Ganado Drive was specifically designed to take advantage of the spectacular view up and down the coast. The lots and houses were designed so as not to block the neighboring properties views. He distributed pictures showing the view blockage on his property. He explained that lacing trees that are blocking his view would not restore his view. It might leave him with a sense of a view, but not a restored view. He suggested that if privacy were an issue then replacement trees were acceptable. He asked the height of the trees remain consistent so there would not be a problem in the future. He suggested the Commission consider a "view plane" which the applicants had defined in a drawing distributed to the Commission. This view plane would be established as a straight line three feet above the foliage owners ridgelines. He pointed out that the trees could exceed the ridgeline of the foliage owners homes, protecting their privacy, and still have views restored. He then distributed to the Commission the applicant's recommended modifications to the staff report. These recommendations requested that language be included that all foliage, whether identified or not identified, be below the height of the view plain. In conclusion, regarding the Schatzlein property, he agreed with option 2 except to include the third Canary Island Pine for removal and suggested topping the rear most tree by four feet. On the Yang property, he agreed with Table 2 of the staff report, except he requested the remove and replace option for Allepo Pines 7 - 12. He requested the height of the Eucalyptus tree be lowered so as not to exceed the view plane. Regarding the Boss foliage, he agreed with Table 3 of the staff report except that unknown tree #1 be crowned to a height below the view plain. Finally, he showed pictures of the Oleanders 1 - 9 and Pines 4-16 and their rapid growth since 1989. He requested these trees not be covered under the View Restoration process, but rather under the Code Enforcement view restoration process. Vivian Yang 3511 Bendigo Drive (foliage owner) began by stating she and her family had purchased their home mostly for the beautiful back yard and the pine trees. She explained the house was built in 1967 and the original owner had planted the pine trees mostly for privacy and to stabilize the slope. She added that she had consulted many tree specialists and they all had said that topping the pines would destroy the life of the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 5 110 • trees. She is willing to remove the back Acacia plants and replace them with new shrubs along the slope. She requested the Commission allow them to keep as many pine trees as possible for privacy and hillside stability. With the loss of the pines and acacia they would lose privacy in their entire yard, patio area, living room, family room, and the master suite upstairs. She also said there are plans to build a swimming pool and spa in their yard in the very near future. The trees would also provide privacy to the pool area. Josephine Boss 3519 Bendigo Drive (foliage owner) began by stating they were willing to comply and cooperate with their neighbors as much as possible. She commented that she did not wish to top and lace the trees as this would destroy the trees. They would like the trees removed and the replacement foliage to be planted in wooden or concrete containers in order to maintain the stability of the slope, because of the steep hill. The existing trees are in containers. They would like all of the existing containers and the debris removed. They also requested to meet with an arborist and discuss the types of foliage suitable for the situation on their property. They would like the replacement foliage to be as mature as possible, as they do not want to wait several years for the foliage in the back yard to be as beautiful as it is now. She also requested an explanation as to how the process would be paid for. Mardell Schlatzlein 3503 Bendigo Drive (foliage owner) stated that they bought their home in 1966 and at that time there were no homes above her on Ganado Drive. The yard was professionally landscaped at that time and she has enjoyed the growth of her trees since that time. She would be perfectly willing to keep her trees laced and trimmed, but would not give her consent to the removal of the trees. Mr. Hamilton (in rebuttal) commented that he felt the trees on Mrs. Yang's property had only been trimmed once in the twelve years she has lived there. Finally, he did not feel that there was a privacy issue on the Yang property. The pines did not offer any substantial privacy that he could tell. Mr. McFadden (in rebuttal) again stated that he did not feel there was any privacy issues to be considered and did not feel that there were any erosion issues to be addressed. Mr. Krasovec (in rebuttal) stated that the applicants had been trying to reach a compromise with the foliage owners for quite awhile and felt that the View Restoration Commission now needed to step in and make a fair and just decision concerning the views that were lost due to the excessive foliage. Mrs. Boss again asked for clarification on the cost of the view restoration process. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 6 • 0 Principal Planner Rojas explained that there would be no way of knowing right now what the cost of tree removal/trimming would be until the Commission made a decision. He explained the process of getting bids, establishing a trust deposit, and payment. Daniel Yang 3511 Bendigo Drive (foliage owner) commented that privacy was a big issue with his family and the pine trees did offer a lot of privacy for the family. He also felt the applicants were asking for everything they wanted and were leaving very little room for compromise. Commissioner Goern asked for clarification from Mrs. Boss regarding the removal of existing roots. She wondered if Mrs. Boss wanted the roots removed or left in the slope to help with stability. Mrs. Boss responded that she wanted the roots removed because they were in concrete forms. She requested the concrete forms and roots be removed and the new foliage be planted in new concrete forms or boxes. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:45 p.m. the Commission took a short break until 8:55 p.m. at which time they reconvened. Commissioner A. Green suggested the Commission look at one property at a time and felt they should start with the property located at 3503 Bendigo Drive, the Schatzlein property. Chair R. Green felt that, with the exception of the Hamilton property, the Canary Island Pines did not create a major problem with view blockage and were not in the main viewing area. He asked staff how often the Canary Island Pines could be laced. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that, according to the arborist, Canary Island Pines should be laced in the winter months. As to the frequency of lacing, the Commission has in the past used once a year as a guideline. Vice Chair Sweetnam added that in his experience the pines may only need lacing every two years. He felt a possible solution was to recommend a review of the trees VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 7 II III once a year but they would probably only need lacing once every two years. Commissioner A. Green felt that the McFadden property really could not be obstructed by the Canary Island Pines. He felt the Hamilton and Krasovec properties did have a view blockage from the pines. He wondered if lacing all three trees was going to open up a big enough area to allow a view from both of the affected properties. He suggested removing two of the smallest trees (trees 1 and 2) and keeping the largest and healthiest tree (tree 3) and lacing it. This may allow the two applicants to regain their view and allow the foliage owner to keep as much as possible. Vice Chair Sweetnam wondered if the two smaller pines could be topped and reshaped rather than removed and lace the larger tree. Commissioner Goern felt that there would have to be 20 to 30 feet of the trees topped to have them out of the viewing area. Commissioner A. Green suggested wording the Resolution to heavily lace the largest Canary Island Pine and to offer a choice to the foliage owner as to topping the two smaller Canary Island Pines below the view plane or removing these two trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam did not feel there was any justification for replacement foliage for the two pines as there was no privacy or stability issues. Commissioner A. Green added that the stumps of the trees should also be removed and ground out if the trees were to be removed. Chair R. Green wondered if the trees were to be topped, how would the Commission determine to what height they should be topped. He discussed the idea the applicants had suggested of ridgeline plus a determined number of feet. Vice Chair Sweetnam added that the unidentified tree on the north eastern side of the property should be included in the staff recommendations, and suggested trimming and topping it four feet. Chair R. Green summarized by saying the Canary Island Pine No. 3 should be laced heavily, reviewed yearly, and trimmed bi-yearly. Canary Island Pine trees No. 1 and 2 should be topped below the view plane or removed with the consent of the owner. Tree number 4 in the north east corner should be added and trimmed to a height not to exceed the view plane. This was agreeable to the Commission. Chair R. Green commented that the Commission would have to determine a view plane VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 8 • 0 for the property and asked staff what the elevation difference was between the Hamilton and Krasovec properties. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that there was approximately 10 feet difference between the two properties. Chair R. Green suggested the view plane measurement be taken 36 inches from above the Krasovec pad level. Project Coordinator Nelson felt that adding the 36 inches above the pad level would probably be encroaching into the view plane. She felt that the way the properties were situated, it would be best to take the measurement from the Krasovec pad level. Principal Planner Rojas supplied the Commission with a drawing board and the Commission sketched the pads and levels of the applicants and foliage owners to help determine the view plane. A lengthy discussion followed as to how to determine the view plane for the different properties. Chair R. Green suggested the view plane on the Schatzlein property be 36 inches above the Krasovec property and five feet above the Schatzlein property. There was general consensus among the Commission that these bench marks were appropriate. Chair R. Green suggested the Commission consider the trees at 3511 Bendigo Drive, the Yang property. Vice Chair Sweetnam began by stating the Yangs had commented that their primary concern was privacy, however he did not feel that, because of the way the pine trees are located with no foliage on the lower portion of the trees, privacy was an issue. Chair R. Green felt that the Acacias were probably providing more privacy than the pine trees. Commissioner A. Green felt there was no privacy issue at all, as none of the trees were screening the property. Commissioner Goern felt the blockage from this property was excessive and did not feel lacing would restore the view. Chair R. Green recommended topping Pine trees 7 - 12 or remove with the owners consent, rather than lacing as staff had recommended. He felt the trees were too close to the property line and the trees grew too rapidly for lacing to be effective. He stated VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 9 I 0 that Acacia trees 1 -10 should be topped to the height of the view plane or remove with the foliage owners consent. This approach was acceptable to the Commission. He added the Commission needed to determine the view plane for this property. Commissioner A. Green stated that the choice was between the McFadden and Krasovec properties or some point between the two pad levels. Project Coordinator Nelson stated the difference in height between the McFadden and Krasovec properties was five feet. Chair R. Green suggested creating the view plane five feet above the ridgeline of the Yang house (for the lower measurement) to a point 36 inches above the lowest point on the McFadden pad. The Commission generally agreed with this method of measurement Regarding the Boss property at 3519 Bendigo Drive , Commissioner A. Green stated that there had been a request to consider some of the trees through code enforcement rather than view restoration. He wondered how that should be handled. Principal Planner Rojas explained that City Council had clarified that if there was documentation of a view that existed any point from 1989 to today, then it could be handled as a code enforcement issue to restore that view. Commissioner A. Green felt that since the applicant could remove from the Resolution any tree the applicant sees fit, he suggested they move forward as if these were not code enforcement issues, since they were not positive the documentation existed. He did not want to have any trees taken out of consideration now and find out later they should have been left in. Chair R. Green added that he wasn't sure that some of the trees should be removed. There were trees on the property that needed to be trimmed down just a few feet to restore the view and, because the foliage owners may not want to pay the money to maintain the trees at that level, he did not feel that was good reason to go ahead and take the trees all of the way out at the applicant's expense. Commissioner A. Green suggested dealing with the trees identified in Table 3 of the staff report as pine trees 1 - 3. Staff recommended topping or removing with the consent of the foliage owner. Commissioner Green agreed with the recommendation. He also pointed out staff recommended topping or removing with consent Eucalyptus Trees 1 and 2 which he also agreed with. For the remaining trees on the property (4 - 16) he felt the decision should be made once the view plane was determined. This VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 10 • • approach was acceptable to the Commission. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested recommending the remaining trees be topped to a level not to exceed the view plane. Commissioner A. Green suggested the view plane in regards to the Boss property should be at the pad level of the McFadden property. This measurement was agreeable to the Commission. Commissioner A. Green moved to adopt the staff recommendations as modified, and present a Resolution to the Commission at the next View Restoration Commission for approval, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (6-0) RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:25 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 10:35 p.m. at which time they reconvened. 6. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 29 -APPEAL: Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Keilbach, 3632 Greve Drive (applicant); Mr. Jon Echevarrieta, 30327 Ganado Drive (foliage owner). (TN) Vice Chair Sweetnam recused himself from hearing this project, as he knows the applicant personally. Project Coordinator Nelson explained to the Commission that this case had been appealed to the City Council, who had remanded it back to the View Restoration Commission with direction to re-examine the recommendation for Pine trees 1-3 and look a little more closely at the privacy issue. Ms. Nelson explained that staff did not feel that privacy was an issue, as the two properties are set back a substantial distance from the rear property line and there is a substantial slope that separates the two properties. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing Norbert Keilbach 3632 Greve Drive (applicant) began by stating that he disagreed with the statement that City Council gave direction to re-examine Pines 1-3. He stated the City Council never made a motion, nor was there a vote taken. Secondly, he referred the Commission back to their previous decision regarding the trees. At that time the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 11 0 0 Commission had decided to trim the trees to the pad level. Now, Staff was recommending the trees be trimmed 3 feet above the pad level. He pointed out to the Commission that the foliage recently cut by the foliage owner has already grown 2 to 3 feet. Therefore, he felt that cutting 3 feet above the pad level would just initiate code enforcement much sooner than it should be. He also stated that lacing was rejected at the original hearing because the Commission agreed that lacing would not restore the view. In conclusion, he urged the Commission to adopt the staff recommendations with the following exception, the trees should be cut to the level of the pad. He would not object to planting some type of replacement foliage if the Commission felt there was any privacy issue. Chair R. Green asked the Commission if any of them had been able to visit Mr. Echevarrieta's property. He commented that he had received a call from Mr. Echevarrieta requesting he come to the property, but Mr. Echevarrieta had never called back to make the arrangements as to when he would be available. He stated he had stopped by Mr. Echevarrieta's property after visiting the Keilbach property, but there had been nobody home. Commissioner Goern commented that she had tried to visit the property also, but nobody was home at the time. Chair R. Green clarified that the Commission was not bound in any way by what was decided at the first hearing, nor were they bound by the suggestions from the City Council. Chair R. Green asked staff to re-distribute to the Commission Mr. Echevarrieta's prior submissions and pictures for the Commission to review. He also asked if any new information had been submitted by Mr. Echevarrieta. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that staff had not received any new information from Mr. Echevarrieta. The Commission discussed whether privacy should be an issue in regards to neighboring properties. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that a neighbor who lives next door to the foliage owner had spoken at the City Council meeting regarding his privacy from Mr. Keilbach's property if the foliage were cut. Chair R. Green felt there was a privacy issue if trimming the trees on the foliage owner's property created a view from some parts of the applicant's property directly onto the foliage owners's property. He did not feel that it was applicable to discuss the views into a non-applicant/foliage owner's property. Instead, he felt the Commission VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 12 0 0 should concentrate on the trees specifically involved in the privacy issue and not re- address the other trees they had previously made decisions on. He felt the Commission should review the past Resolution and make sure they were satisfied with the findings for those trees, then concentrate on the privacy issues. Principal Planner Rojas added that at the City Council appeal, Mr. Echevarrieta brought up privacy concerns that he did not address during the View Restoration Commission hearing. He felt the City Council was specific in the sense that they focused on privacy and felt the View Restoration Commission should try to address Mr. Echevarrieta's concerns. Chair R. Green felt that privacy was discussed in the initial View Restoration Commission meeting. He did not feel the findings of the original Resolution needed to be changed, just modified to reflect additional concerns for the privacy issue. He felt that now the Commission should re-address the privacy issue more fully, with the idea of looking at some type of mitigation planting that can be made that addresses the privacy issue. He stated that instead of pine trees there could be some sort of low growing foliage that will block the view down into the foliage owner's backyard. Commissioner A. Green agreed stating that some type of type of low growing bush or acacia placed along the fence line would address the privacy issue. Commissioner Marshall questioned how tall of a shrub would have to be planted to preserve privacy. Chair R. Green felt that in this instance, since there was a deck extending very close to the property line, it was appropriate to consider the viewing area close to the applicant's property line. Where you may not be able to see any of the foliage owner's yard from the viewing area, it may very well be possible to see it from the deck area which extends almost to the edge of the property. Commissioner A. Green mentioned that low growing acacias tend to grow quite wide, rather than tall, which would make the acacia a possible choice for replacement foliage. He felt something like that would make a big difference in what can be seen on the foliage owner's property. Commissioner A. Green asked Mr. Keilbach if he would agree if the Commission allowed the foliage to be at a height to the top of his fence, rather than the pad level. He also wondered if Mr. Keilbach would be willing to pay for replacement foliage that would grow on the other side of his fence that would grow to the height of the fence. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 13 II • Mr. Keilbach answered that the fence in question was a wrought iron fence that was required to be there because of the pool on his property. Further, his property extended an additional two feet beyond the fence. He did not want anything planted on his property, as it would destroy the view that he has through the wrought iron fence. Mr. Keilbach drew a diagram for the Commission to help clarify where the fence was and where the foliage on Mr. Echevarrieta's property was. Commissioner A. Green felt the Commission should add to the Resolution a statement saying that at the applicant's expense, a row of low growing bushes or other foliage should be planted at the top of the transitional slope across the entire fence line. Commissioner Marshall wondered how high the foliage would be. Commissioner A. Green estimated that the foliage would be approximately eight to ten feet high. However, the further down the slope foliage is planted, the taller and denser it may be. Principal Planner Rojas added that for clarification, the Commission was saying that there was the flexibility for the foliage owner to plant the new foliage as far down the slope as desired to achieve whatever density he wanted. Therefore the height limit would vary depending on where it was planted, as long as it didn't extend over the height the Commission determined appropriate. Chair R. Green suggested the Commission decide the maximum number of replacement trees or shrubs could be planted that the applicant would be responsible for paying the cost of. Project Coordinator Nelson added that the City Arborist had made mention that when planting trees on a slope, the one gallon size plant do far better on a slope and become established much more quickly. The foliage owner could also plant far more of the one gallon size as opposed to the five gallon size plants. Principal Planner Rojas stated that, since the applicant would be paying for the replacement foliage, the Commission would need to establish some type of parameters as to the number of trees/foliage that would be replanted. Chair R. Green suggested that the Commission require a maximum of 25 replacement plants on the slope or fewer as designated by the city arborist, to provide a sufficient visual buffer. The Commission agreed that this level of replacement was appropriate. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 14 0 0 Commissioner A. Green stated there were four trees that still needed to be discussed as to whether to keep the decision made or change it. Project Coordinator Nelson read to the Commission the wording in Exhibit A regarding the remaining trees. Regarding paragraph 4 of Exhibit A, Chair R. Green wondered if the Commission could keep the wording of three feet in the paragraph. Commissioner A. Green felt that pad level would be more appropriate. Chair R. Green suggested it read: "The Ash tree shall be topped and trimmed from a point which does not exceed a diagonal line drawn from a point at the top of the transitional slope at 3632 Greve Drive and extending to the ridgeline of the residence at 30327 Ganado Drive." The same wording would apply to the Ornamental Plum tree and Scrub Oak tree. Chair R. Green polled the Commission at this point to see who had visited the site a second time. All Commissioners, except Commissioner Karmelich had gone a second visit. Chair R. Green summarized the decisions on the pine trees as follows: Pine tree number 4 shall be topped and trimmed from a point which does not exceed a diagonal line drawn from a point at the top of the transitional slope at 3632 Greve Drive and extending to the ridgeline of the residence at 30327 Ganado Drive and maintained in such a manner. Pine trees 1, 2, and 3 are to be removed with the consent of the foliage owner and replace 2 five gallon trees or shrubs, to be selected by the foliage owner from a list provided by Staff. There was general consensus among the Commission on this course of action. Commissioner A. Green felt that, since the Commission was requiring the wall of approximately 25 replacement shrubs on the slope, it was not necessary to also include the language regarding the 2 five gallon trees or shrubs as replacement foliage for the pine trees. Chair R. Green further stated there would be language stating a privacy barrier, consisting of not more than 25 trees or shrubs, to be selected by the foliage owner from a list provided by staff and as approved by the city arborist and Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The placement on the slope would be at the choice of the foliage owner. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 15 di 0 Commissioner A. Green moved to accept the staff recommendations, as amended with a Resolution to be returned to the Commission for approval at the November 6, 1997 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Approved, (5- 0-1) with Vice Chair Sweetnam recused. ITEMS TO BEPLACED ON FUTURE AGE. Principal Planner Rojas stated that he would be presenting the review of the directives from the City Council workshop at the November 6, 1997 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. The meeting was duly adjourned at 12:03 a.m. to Thursday, November 6, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1997 PAGE 16