Loading...
VRC MINS 19970724 • 0 APPROVED 08/21/97 QE, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:05 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Boudreau. PRESENT: Commissioner Boudreau, Long, Marshall, Karmelich, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioners Black, Vice Chair Sweetnam (excused) and Commissioner A. Green Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Boudreau moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Approved, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed the following materials to the Commissioners: 1) correspondence regarding VRP No. 40; 2) correspondence regarding VRP No. 39; 3) correspondence regarding VRP No. 37; and, 4) correspondence regarding VRP No. 44. Principal Planner Rojas also informed the Commission that staff had received an appeal for VRP No. 41. He also informed them that he had attended a meeting of the Board of Realtors and took the opportunity to explain to them the view restoration process and issues discussed at the last meeting. He will be preparing a letter for the Board of Realtors. Finally, he informed the Commission that the video tape for the City Council meeting of July 1, 1997 was available from Staff for viewing. Commissioner Long discussed the misunderstandings regarding staff recommendations and foliage owners and expressed the view that foliage owners should be made aware that they need not cut foliage pursuant to staff recommendations at their own expense, but should wait until the hearing. If the application process does result in the order to trim foliage, the initial expense will be borne by the applicant. 0 0 APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1997 Commissioner Boudreau moved to adopt the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (4-0-1) with Chair R. Green abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 40 - RESOLUTION Commissioner Long moved to remove the item from the consent calendar in light of the correspondence received, and consider it before the public hearings, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. PROCEDURES HANDOUT Commissioner Boudreau moved to continue the item to the August 7, 1997 View Restoration Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. Approved, (5-0). OTHER ITEMS 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 40 - RESOLUTION The Commission took a few minutes to review the letter submitted by Mr. Mazen regarding the Resolution. Commissioner Long began by stating he recalled the Commission had made the decision to trim foliage on an annual basis. The question before them was if they would reexamine that decision. Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission that their discussion would have to be limited to the language of the Resolution, as the public hearing was closed. Project Coordinator Nelson did not recall the Commission requesting the foliage be trimmed annually. She stated staff inserted the language to help control the amount of time Code Enforcement spent on each case. Commissioner Long suggested deleting the sentences in the Resolution that dealt with trimming the foliage on an annual basis. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 2 • • Brian Mazen (applicant) 29929 Knollview Drive, agreed that deleting the statement that foliage shall be trimmed annually would satisfy his concerns, since different foliage grows at such different rates. Commissioner Long moved to modify the Resolution to delete the sentences that state the foliage shall be trimmed annually and adopt the Resolution as amended, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Adopted, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 37: Dr. Kenneth Daponte, 3662 Greve Drive (TN) Before beginning, Chair R. Green polled the Commission as to what sites they had visited. All Commissioners had visited all of the sites, with the exception of Chair R. Green. He had not visited the site relating to VRP No. 44. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report explaining there were 17 trees in question on the property at 30419 Ganado Drive (Lorenz) and 3 trees at 30411 Ganado Drive (Patton). The applicant had included an Olive tree on his application, however staff did not feel it significantly blocked a view. She recommended that the Commission adopt the recommendations of the staff report. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Dr. Ken Daponte (applicant) 3662 Greve Drive, began by distributing photographs taken of the view in 1975 and again in 1997. He stated he had purchased his home in 1969 and had paid a premium price for it because of its unobstructed, panoramic view. Today he felt only 10% of that view remained. He agreed with staff recommendations regarding the foliage at 30411 Ganado Drive. He explained that in the past he would meet with the owners at 30419 Ganado and they would amicably agree on trimming the foliage. He felt there was never a privacy issue in the past and there shouldn't be one now. Dr. Daponte informed the Commission he had paid to have trees topped and trimmed at that address several times. However, the trees grew back very rapidly. He requested the Commission consider the view he had lost and make the fair decision to restore his view. Roy Lorenz (foliage owner) 30419 Ganado Drive explained to the Commission that he felt Proposition 'M' was flawed in several aspects in that it resulted in the taking of private property for the benefit of some other interest and the taking of land without just compensation. He also felt that Proposition 'M' implied that trees existing prior to November 7, 1989 would be grandfathered in. He also explained that to replace trees VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 3 • the size of his Monterey Pines would cost approximately $30,000. Improper cutting of the trees would reduce their value 50 to 90 percent. He was worried that using the lowest bid would result in improper cutting, as superior workmanship would demand a higher price. He felt any cutting of his trees must be done by superior workmen during the correct season of the year. Shaping the trees should be done in such a manner as to retain as much of the aesthetic value as possible. He explained that the Commission should consider the view from one viewing area on the applicant's property, not from multiple locations. In conclusion, Mr. Lorenz explained he expected to be compensated for the loss of the value of his trees due to topping and the reduction of the resale value of his home. He felt that the best solution to this problem was compromise. Kenneth Patton (foliage owner) 30411 Ganado Drive distributed a picture for the Commission to view and explained that the photo shows that Dr. Daponte has a view over his residence of Catalina Island and the ocean. The three trees in question on his property do not even show in the photo as they are to the far right and therefore do not significantly obstruct any view. Dr. Daponte then submitted letters for the Commission to review from Mr. and Mrs. Hamish Bell of 3666 Greve Drive and Mrs. David Neptune, a former resident of 3666 Greve Drive. John Echevarrieta 30327 Ganado Drive began by stating that several City Council members stated at the July 15, 1997 City Council meeting that Proposition'M' was somewhat flawed and didn't represent what the voters believed they were voting on. He requested the Commission deter any and all radical decisions on the trimming and topping of trees until the City Council clarifies the amendments to the Proposition. Dr. Daponte responded that he did not feel trimming the trees on the foliage owners' property was going to diminish the value of their property. However, he felt that if he tried to sell his home now the value would be much lower because of the trees blocking his view. He also stated that he felt his principle viewing area was from his patio. Mr. Lorenz stated that his property value would be diminished and urged the Commission to consider a compromise in this issue. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Lorenz what type of compromise he was willing to make. Mr. Lorenz responded that he had already topped some trees on the property and was willing to trim more, but he was not willing to cut his Monterey Pines or the two Canary Island Pines. He would be willing to take one of the three Canary Island Pines out as well as an Allepo Pine and top the other trees. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 4 • 0 Chair R. Green asked about the privacy issue. He wondered what tree currently was protecting his privacy. Mr. Lorenz stated that the two Monterey Pines provided privacy from two properties. The Allepo Pine also provided privacy from 3666 Greve Drive. Commissioner Boudreau asked if he would be satisfied if the Monterey Pines were trimmed down slightly and thinned and laced. Mr. Lorenz responded that he did not want the Monterey Pines topped at all. Lacing and thinning may damage and weaken the trees and possibly kill them. He wanted to leave the trees alone. He stated he was willing to compromise and cut and trim the other trees, but wanted these trees left alone. Commissioner Boudreau asked Dr. Daponte if he had any recommendations for the Commission to consider. Dr. Daponte responded that he would like to see the trees lowered to the ridgeline and maintained at the ridgeline. He did not feel that lacing would restore his view. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Lorenz if he had a view from his home. Mr. Lorenz responded that he had several views. He has a view of Catalina, which is blocked by neighbors' trees and views to the side that are blocked by some of his own trees as well as neighbors' trees and City trees. Commissioner Boudreau moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Marshall asked staff what the distance was between the applicant and foliage owners' properties. He also asked staff their opinion on the privacy issue for the foliage owners'. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that the properties were separated by a slope of approximately 1-1/2 to 1, and probably 35 to 40 feet difference in elevation. She also responded that regarding privacy, it was not an issue for the Patton property. However, VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 5 on the Lorenz property if you were standing on the edge of the property the Monterey Pines do provide some privacy to the property. However, as you move back towards the patio there was less of a privacy issue. Commissioner Long stated that there was no question that the collection of foliage did significantly impair a view, however the Commission should try to reach some sort of compromise that would restore the view as well as preserve the Canary Pines and Monterey Pines. Staff has recommended trimming and lacing only of the Canary Pines, which is the beginning of a compromise. He felt the primary concern now was on trees 12 and 13 (Monterey Pines). Staff had recommended removal and the foliage owner would prefer the trees not be touched at all. Commissioner Boudreau felt that the Monterey Pines did not need to come down to the ridgeline, but only be topped 4 or 5 feet to restore the view. Chair R. Green suggested trimming the trees at an angle from the applicant's pad rather than straight across. Commissioner Long felt that topping the Monterey Pines and Canary Pines level with the applicant's pad would allow more foliage to remain. After looking at Exhibit 'A' of the staff report and some discussion, Commissioner Long summarized the findings for the trees at 30419 Ganado Drive by stating Item 1 should be amended to read top to the level of the applicant's pad and shaped. That same language to be used in Items 2-7. Items 8 and 9 should read remove (and replace) with the consent of the foliage owner, or top to the applicant's pad level. Items 10 an 11 needed the last sentence deleted. Items 12 and 13 should be amended to read remove (and replace) with the foliage owners consent, or top to the level of the applicant's pad. Item 14 could stay as is, except remove the last sentence. Items 15- 17 should be amended to read remove (and replace) with consent of foliage owner, or top to the applicant's pad level. Regarding foliage at 30411 Ganado Drive, include language referring to the pines in Items 1-3 to say remove (and replace) with the consent of the foliage owner, or top to the applicant's pad level. The Commissioners agreed on these changes. Commissioner Long made a motion to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Adopted, (5-0). VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 6 • 0 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 P.M. there was a short recess until 9:05 P.M. at which time the meeting was reconvened. 6. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 39: Dr. and Mrs Del Beisell, 2608 Colt Road (EU) Chair R. Green polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the applicant's property. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He began by reviewing the different correspondence that was distributed to the Commission regarding the staff report. He explained the applicant was asking to have his view of the Los Angeles Harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge, ocean, and city lights restored from his living room, dining room, and rear yard patio. He reviewed staff recommendations for the foliage in question. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Dr. Del Beisell (applicant) 2608 Colt Road distributed pictures to the Commission showing the property when there was a view and how it appears today. He explained that some of the foliage owners had made an effort to trim their trees, but more needed to be done. He complimented Staff on their report and commented that he was willing to work with the foliage owners in any way possible to help restore his view. Commissioner Boudreau asked Dr. Beisell if, on the Kunkle property, the trees were brought down and laced out, would he be satisfied. Dr. Beisell responded he would accept that if the trees were laced heavily and maintained. Chair R. Green asked Dr. Beisell about the ficus at the far right end of the property and the recommendation to trim it to a level five feet above the ridgeline. Dr. Beisell responded that he was totally against that recommendation. The ficus needed to be cut to five feet. He commented that there is no privacy issue with the bathroom as the window is a leaded, opaque glass. The pool is on the other side of the fence, so that is also not a privacy issue. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 7 Commissioner Marshall commented that these foliage owners were very concerned with their privacy and wondered if Dr Beisell had made any provisions for this. Dr. Beisell responded that he had allowed their trees to encroach on to his property approximately 25 feet, under the theory that if they go out they won't go up. He commented that this has worked to a certain extent. The Commission then took several minutes to read the correspondence received from the foliage owners at 2565 Colt Road (Kunkle), who were not present at the meeting. Commissioner Boudreau moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. Approved, (5-0). Chair R. Green discussed the trees on the Kunkle property and felt that the trees were on the edge of the view. The majority of the best view was out over the harbor and Vincent Thomas Bridge, which these trees did not block. Concerning the ficus, he did feel it was blocking a view, but did provide privacy for the Neal property. He wondered if there was a way to limit the width of the ficus. Commissioner Long suggested wording to say the thirty foot ficus tree shall be cut to a height not to exceed 5 feet above the highest ridgeline of the primary structure and shall be maintained at a width no greater than 12 feet across. Project Coordinator Ursu added that the ridgeline of the Neal residence was 2 or 3 feet below the pad level of the applicant's property which would mean that the ficus would end up being approximately 2 feet above the applicant's pad level. Commissioner Boudreau then discussed the trees on the Kunkle property. She stated that one of the trees was already dead and could be removed. She felt the other trees were planted so close together and crowded in so closely that they were already dying and getting thin as they weren't getting enough sun. Commissioner Long added that privacy could not be an issue as the trees were so thin from their poor condition they could not provide much, if any privacy. Chair R. Green stated the Kunkles had a jacuzzi roughly in the middle of all of the trees. The upper branches probably did provide some shade to the house, however he did not feel the trees provided much privacy. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 8 0 0 Commissioner Boudreau stated that Mr. Kunkle did seem receptive to the idea of having replacement trees if his trees were ordered removed. Commissioner Long did not feel replacement foliage was appropriate in this case as there was no privacy at the jacuzzi now. He suggested, as a possibility, replacing the five pine trees that would be cut with 2 five or ten gallon replacement trees. Chair R. Green agreed that there was no privacy provided by the trees. However, the trees did provide a sense of enclosure for the lawn area and he was a little uncomfortable not providing some type of replacement trees. Commissioner Long again suggested replacing the pines with 2 five gallon replacement trees. There were too many trees planted in too small an area now and he could not justify replacing the trees with an equal number of trees. If the foliage owner was not satisfied with the condition of replacement he could always reject removal of the trees and opt for topping, as recommended in the staff report. Principal Planner Rojas commented that the reason staff was not recommending replacement was because the guidelines require replacement only when there is an issue regarding privacy or safety. The foliage owner must also consent to replacement. Staff determined that there was no privacy impact to the foliage owner if the trees were removed. If the commission decides there are privacy issues, then replacement trees should be discussed. Commissioner Long commented that there was not a privacy issue, therefore he did not see a need to recommend replacement foliage. Commissioner Long moved to adopt the Resolution with an amendment that the 30 foot Ficus tree located at 2672 Colt Road be topped to a height not to exceed five feet above the highest ridgeline of the primary structure and shall be maintained at a width no greater than 12 feet, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Approved, (5-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:15 P.M. the Commission took another short recess until 10:25 P.M. at which time they reconvened. 7. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 44: Mr. and Mrs. Edward Forgeron, 5313 Littlebow Road; Ms. Helen Chavanne, 5303 Littlebow Road (TN) VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 9 0 0 Chair R. Green polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the site. Chair R. Green did not visit the site and recused himself from the discussion. Commissioner Long was appointed to chair the discussion. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She explained there were four foliage properties involving 14 trees and several shrubs that blocked a view of the city lights and the Los Angeles Harbor. She explained staff had received three items of correspondence with regards to the application, which the Commission was given. In regards to the early neighborhood consultation process, the foliage owners at 5331 Manitowac Road (Schroff) were given a copy of the letter when the applicants visited the property and based on a conversation with the applicants, staff believes that adequate notification had occurred. However, staff did request the applicant provide written proof of notification prior to tonight's meeting, which they did. Finally, Ms. Nelson distributed photographs that reflected recent trimming that was done on the Purinton property. Commissioner Long opened the public hearing. Mr. Edward Forgeron (applicant) 5313 Littlebow Road began by stating he was an original owner of his property. He stated when he moved in there were no trees and the view was magnificent. Over the years the trees had grown to block his view. Mr. Forgeron commented he read the staff report, and while he had a few minor objections, he was willing to accept the recommendations as presented in the report. Mr. Doug Purinton (foliage owner) 5320 Manitowac Drive began by stating he had several concerns with staffs recommendations. He stated he had lived in his home for 20 years and when he moved in there was no view from either of the applicant's properties. He felt several trees in the staff report that did not meet specific criteria. Shrub No. 10 is 13 feet tall and does not exceed the ridgeline of his property. He stated the orange tree and Shrub No. 9 do not block any view and if removed the shrubs and pine tree behind them, which are on another property, will block the view. Privacy was an important issue, not from the Forgeron property, but from the next property up. The property is higher than his and from the ground floor and second story they can look into his patio area and master bedroom. The lemon tree, backed up by the orange tree and pepper tree, do currently provide privacy. Mr. Purinton stated he had already trimmed several of his trees and was willing to work with Mr. Forgeron, but he was not willing to give up the privacy the lemon and orange trees provide. Mr. Gregory Schroff(foliage owner) 5331 Manitowac Drive distributed pictures for the Commission to view. He felt the Commission could not make the necessary findings regarding the trees on his property for view impairment. He stated the guidelines require there be one viewing area per application. He commented the two big trees at VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 10 0 4110 the back of his property did not significantly impair the views from either of the applicant's properties. They take up approximately 5% of the view. He felt it was very difficult to locate the two trees mentioned in the application from either applicant's property. He further stated that there was no view from the Forgeron property in 1989 when Proposition 'M' passed and did not feel that views that may have existed prior to 1989 should be restored or protected now. He read passages from an article published by the California Department of Forestry that strongly urged people not to top trees for the health of the tree. Mr. Ivan Lamos (foliage owner) 5337 Manitowac Drive stated he had two trees which were included in the application. He further stated he had come to an agreement with the applicant on the removal of his two trees. However, he felt there was a problem with the removal of one of the large trees on the Schroff property, since it was on a bank and that bank had a tendency for sliding during the rainy season. He felt the tree was instrumental in keeping the sliding to a minimum because of its root system. Therefore, he felt the Commission must be very careful in what they decided to do with the tree so not to kill it. He didn't think it was right that so many people in the neighborhood must trim and cut their trees for the benefit of one person. Dr. David Kim (foliage owner) 5343 Manitowac Drive stated he moved into his residence approximately two years ago and was not aware of the fact his tree obstructed anyone's view. He stated that after he was contacted by the applicants he visited their homes several times and was willing to talk to them about some type of compromise. He said neither applicant was willing to compromise. He commented that he was willing to trim the trees and possibly replace one of the trees. He did not want to lace and trim the trees to the level of the ridgeline, which is 16 feet. He stated his trees were supposed to be approximately 30 feet high and did not want the trees cut to approximately half their size. This would decrease his property value. Edwin Baumann 5327 Littlebow Road discussed the great view loss suffered by Mr. Forgeron over the years and distributed a picture taken in 1987 that showed a view. He wanted to voice his support for the application before the Commission. Mr. Forgeron did not feel there was any type of privacy issue concerning any of the foliage owner's properties. He commented that he loved trees but when buying his home he valued a view more than he valued a tree. He stated he had visited Mr. Lamos' property and was surprised at the amount of slide in the back. He did not feel that the tree would need to be removed, however it could be cut down to the ridgeline and laced to restore his view. Mr. Purinton commented that his was a very complicated issue as there were a lot of trees in the viewing area, each one individually of very small consequence. However, VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 11 0 0 taken all together he can understand Mr. Forgeron's concern. In terms of his property he could say that there was very little foliage on his property directly blocking his view. He was very adamant about keeping his orange and lemon trees to protect his privacy. He did not feel that the staff recommendation to cut the trees down to the ridgeline of his home was very fair as it would leave nothing of his trees. Mr. Schroff discussed the notification process stating that they received a letter dated March 18, 1997 by certified mail on June 30, 1997 at their Manitowac address. He discussed that there had been several efforts made to reach a compromise with the applicant with no success. He asked the Commission to make a fair compromise for this issue. Dr. Kim stated he paid a premium price for his home and had he known he may have to cut his trees he might not have bought the home. He stated that Mr. Forgeron may have had a view 20 years ago, but the fact is trees grow and things change. He did not feel it was fair for four households to cut their trees to satisfy the needs of two households. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Schroff what changes he would make to the staff recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Schroff answered that, after contacting an arborist, the biggest concern was the Canary Island Pine in the rear yard and the Monterey Cyprus. He would be willing to trim and lace 20% of the trees' green growth during December when they were dormant, otherwise he felt the trees may die. He felt the other trees mentioned in the application could be removed if that was what the applicant wanted. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Schroff if he felt that the notice he was given did not give him adequate time to prepare evidence. If he did feel that way, could he specifically identify the evidence that he thought he could have developed if he had additional time. Mr. Schroff answered that he could always use more time, but he did not feel it was a problem. Commissioner Boudreau asked Mr. Schroff if he could clarify if the tree identified as tree no. 1 was actually a Canary Island Pine. She did not think that was what it looked like. Mr. Schroff did not know if it was a Canary Island Pine or not, and wondered if it made any difference. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 12 4111 411 Commissioner Long asked Mr. Purinton for some clarification as to his greatest concerns regarding the staff recommendations for his trees. Mr. Purinton answered that the shrubs were not a major concern. He was not truly convinced that they were blocking any view from Mr. Forgeron's property and was therefore reluctant to take them down. He would rather thin them out and see if there was truly going to be any view restoration. If there was, then he would be willing to lower them. He does not need the shrubs for privacy, he just does not want to give up something unless there is an honest payoff for the applicant. Regarding the lemon tree, Mr. Purinton estimated it was currently at a height 4 to 5 feet above the applicant's pad level. The orange tree was a few feet lower than that. He did not feel he could cut any more than one foot off of the height to preserve his privacy. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Purinton if the other staff recommendations were agreeable to him. Mr. Purinton answered that the tree identified as a Cyprus Tree had already been thinned out and trimmed down approximately 20 feet. There is a street tree behind it and he was not sure that lowering it would increase the view. Commissioner Long then asked Dr. Kim what his feeling was as to what trimming needed to be done on his property. Dr. Kim responded that he would be willing to lace the trees up to 40 to 50 percent and shape them, but he was not willing to lower the height of the trees. He was also willing to have the olive tree removed and replaced with some other type of tree. Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. There being no objection the public hearing was closed, (4-0). Commissioner Boudreau commented on the tree on Mr. Lamos' property that was on the slope. She felt that sometimes trees grow tall and when the bank gets saturated with water, the actual weight of the tree may contribute to a slope failure. She felt that the slope may be better off with the tree removed and some type of ground cover planted. Commissioner Long felt for clarity it might be best to start with the foliage located on Mr. Purinton's property (5320 (Manitowac Drive). Commissioner Boudreau commented that she did go to the neighbor's house to check out the privacy issue. She felt everything on the Purinton property was open to the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 13 • 4 neighbor since there was a second story. She recommended the lemon and orange trees be trimmed to the top of the applicant's fence. Commissioner Long thought it would be better to specify the height in terms of a certain height above the applicant's pad, as the fence might not always be there. He suggested cutting the trees to five feet above the applicant's pad level. Commissioner Marshall argued that in this situation the view is generally enjoyed while sitting down. He felt the trees should be trimmed a little lower to accommodate this. Commissioner Long agreed and suggested trimming the lemon and orange trees to a height 3 feet above the applicant's pad. This should only require the tree be trimmed down approximately 3 feet from it's present height. After observing photos and discussing them, the Commission agreed with staffs recommendations concerning the shrubs on Mr. Purinton's property. To summarize the decision regarding Mr. Purinton's property, Commissioner Long stated the following: No changes would be made to staff recommendation for 1A-D. One E would be changed to say "the lemon and orange trees and the shrubs next to the fruit trees shall be topped to a level 3 feet above Mr. Forgeron's pad level." No change would be made to 1F. Commissioner Long suggested reviewing the foliage on the Schroff property (5331 Manitowac Drive). He wanted to add language to Section 4 of the draft Resolution that stated that the Schroffs claimed to have received late notification but were not prejudiced by any such late notice. Commissioner Boudreau began the discussion with the Cypress. She felt the tree should be trimmed during the winter months and trimmed according to staff recommendations. The Commission reviewed several pictures and had considerable discussion regarding the Canary Island Pine. Commissioner Long was inclined to agree with staffs recommendation to trim and lace without any topping. Commissioner Marshall agreed, as too much of the tree would have to be topped to be effective. Commissioner Long asked staff what their thoughts were in regards to trimming the tree 20 percent versus 50 percent. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 14 • Project Coordinator Nelson felt that trimming the tree 20 percent would restore a significant portion of the tree. Commissioner Long summarized the Commission finding regarding the Schroff property as follows: Exhibit 'A' of the staff report, item 2A would be the staff recommendation with the additional language that trimming and lacing shall occur during the months of November, December, or January. Item B would be changed from 50 to 20 percent, with the same language added about trimming in November, December, or January. Item C shall be stated that the tree shall be removed with the consent of the foliage owner or, then add the language that currently exists in the staff report. Item D will be amended to state that the tree will be removed with the consent of the foliage owner or, then add the language that currently exists in the staff report. The Commission then discussed the two trees on the Lamos property (5337 Manitowac Drive). Commissioner Long suggested adopting the recommendations in the staff report with the additional sentence stating the palm tree shall be removed with the foliage owner's consent. The foliage owner has consented. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Long and began their discussion of Dr. Kim's property (5343 Manitowac Drive). Commissioner Long began the discussion with the Cyprus tree. He suggested that the tree should be topped and trimmed to a height not to exceed the pad elevation of the Forgeron property. He reminded the Commission that Dr. Kim had agreed to lace the Protocarpus tree 40 to 50 percent, which he agreed with. He felt lacing would adequately improve the view without trimming. Commissioner Boudreau disagreed stating the Protocarpus should be brought down to be at least level with mr. Forgeron's pad. Commissioner Long agreed. Commissioner Long reminded the Commission that Dr. Kim had agreed to remove the olive tree if a replacement tree were provided. However, Mr. Long was not sure a replacement tree was required, as the olive tree did not provide privacy to Dr. Kim's house. After a discussion on olive trees, the Commission felt the olive tree could also be topped and trimmed to the pad level of the Forgeron property. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 15 6 ob After looking at the pictures, Commissioner Boudreau felt the olive tree would then be above the ridgeline. Commissioner Boudreau moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. There being no objection, the public hearing was reopened. Commissioner Long asked Dr. Kim to mark on the photos which tree was the olive tree. Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. After reviewing the marked up photos, the Commission agreed that by allowing the olive tree to be topped to the level of the applicant's pad it would be higher than Dr. Kim's ridgeline. Commissioner Boudreau suggested following staffs recommendation. Commissioner Long summarized the findings for Dr. Kim's property by stating: Top and trim to a height not to exceed the pad elevation of the Forgeron property, the Protocarpus tree and Cyprus tree. Top and trim not to exceed the highest ridgeline the olive tree. Commissioner Marshall moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (4-0). ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Long moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 12:04 A.M. to August 7, 1997, 7:00 P.M. and, there being no objection it was so ordered, (5-0). N:\GROUP\PLANNINGWRC\97MIN07.24 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24,1997 PAGE 16