Loading...
VRC MINS 19970515 • APPROVED JUNE 19, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:03 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Marshall. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Petru, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (9-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director Petru informed the Commission of the resignation of Commissioner Gee. The City Council will make a decision on whether to immediately fill the position or allow it to remain vacant until after the November election. Director Petru also distributed a letter of late correspondence regarding View Restoration Permit No. 28 (item 5) and a letter regarding View Restoration Permit No. 34 (item 4). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1997 Commissioner Long stated he had informed Staff he would not be at the meeting and asked the minutes reflect his absence as excused. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (8-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. 0 0 2. View Restoration Permit No. 24 - Resolution Commissioner Boudreau moved to adopt V.R.C. Resolution No. 97-6 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (7-0-2) with Commissioners Karmelich and Marshall abstaining. 3. View Restoration Permit No. 30 - Resolution Commissioner Black moved to adopt V.R.C. Resolution No. 97-7 as presented, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (7-0-2) with Commissioners Karmelich and Marshall abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. View Restoration Permit No. 34: Mr. Kirttan Behera, 11 Cayuse Lane (EU) Chair Green requested the Commission take several minutes to read the item of late correspondence received before the staff report was read. Chair Green then polled the Commission as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site with the exception of Commissioner Long. Therefore, only the seven regular members of the Commission were eligible to participate in the vote. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report, explaining all four trees in the application were Aleppo Pines approximately 40 feet tall. Mr. Ursu explained if the trees were topped they would be left with the base of a tree with very little foliage or a "telephone pole." Staff also felt that lacing and thinning the trees would not adequately restore the applicant's view since the trees are lined up in a straight line (one behind the other) as seen from the applicant's property. Therefore Staff has recommended the trees be removed. Chairman Green opened the public hearing. Mr. Kirttan Behera (applicant), 11 Cayuse Lane, stated he was requesting one thing, to have his view restored. He stated that he would be willing to pay to have the trees trimmed down to the height of five feet above the nearest ridgeline, but anything beyond that, such as removing the trees or bringing in replacement foliage, should be borne by the foliage owner. He also felt privacy should not be an issue even if the trees are removed, because of the slope and canyon that separate the properties. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 2 0 0 Bryan Matsaura (foliage owner's son), 15 Cayuse Lane, told the Commission that he was nine years old and talked about how much he loved nature and how important he felt it was not to cut down trees. He explained that he loved the trees in his yard and the birds and other animals that lived in the trees. Ronald Malin,9 Cayuse Lane, has lived right above the Matsaura property for twenty- two years. He explained how he bought his property because of the rural feeling of the area. There are many trees and a lot of shrubbery and the area is very quiet. He commented that the pine trees in question were at about the same height then that they are now. They were topped several years ago and he was very disappointed since he used to look out and see rolling carpets of trees and shrubbery. After they were topped, he saw only the tops of people's houses. He stated he was very much opposed to having the pine trees cut. Mr. Matsaura (foliage owner), 15 Cayuse Lane, discussed how he also bought his house because of the rural feeling of the neighborhood. He has tried to keep the trees trimmed and laced in the past. He commented that the trees provide quite a bit of privacy for his family. He also discussed the stabilization of the slope once the trees were removed. He felt that was something that needed to be addressed. Mr. Behera (in rebuttal) emphasized that the four pine trees blocking his view were in a straight line and lacing would not restore the view. He also didn't think that removing the trees would in any way affect the stability of the slope. Mrs Behera added that they had bought this house particularly for the view it had at the time and they would like to have that view back. Commissioner Boudreau asked the Beheras what year they had purchased their home and if it had always been a two-story home. Mr. Behera replied that they had bought it in 1987 and they had done no additions to the home. Chair Green asked Mr. Matsaura how high the trees would have to be for them to have a view of the trees out the kitchen window. Chair Green felt that by looking straight out of the window now you would only see the trunks of the tree and no foliage. He was not sure how that situation gave them privacy. Mr. Matsaura replied that Chair Green was correct, but if you looked up you would see trees and foliage instead of houses. Chair Green asked if replacement trees, putting the foliage down below the ridgeline, would be a satisfactory solution. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 3 0 0 Mr. Matsaura agreed that it would protect his privacy. However, he was concerned that smaller trees would take away space from his yard, as his property is narrow. Chair Green asked, if the order from the Commission was to top the trees, leaving "telephone poles", would he be satisfied with that. Mr. Matsaura replied that topping the trees would most likely kill them and given the choice he would have to agree to replacement trees. However, he reminded the Commission that whatever was planted would have to be able to provide stability to the slope area. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Matsaura about any erosion or damage the property suffered near the canyon area of the property during the big rain storms several years ago. Mr. Matsaura replied that during the last big rain fall a couple of trees fell over but there was no other damage he could remember. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Boudreau asked staff what the height of the tree was from the base to the highest point. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that from the pad to the highest point, the trees were approximately twenty feet high, since the trees sat down in a gully. To top the trees to restore the view, approximately fifteen feet of each tree would need to be cut. Commissioner Black wondered if the trees would live if that much of the trees were cut. Chair Green asked staff if there were any suggestions as to what type of replacement foliage would be suitable. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that their suggestion was for the foliage owner to go to a nursery, speak to a tree specialist, show them the conditions, and get a recommendation as to what type of tree would be most suitable in this situation. He reminded the Commission that the replacement foliage would have to be approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement before planting. Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out that one condition of approval needed to be amended to read the trees should be topped to a height and be maintained at the height of the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 4 0 IP highest ridgeline, rather than specifying five feet above the nearest ridgeline. Commissioner Boudreau moved to accept Staffs recommendations, as amended, seconded by Commissioner A. Green, thereby adopting V.R.C. Resolution No. 97- 8. Approved, (7-0). 5. View Restoration Permit NO. 28: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Denno, 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson presented the Staff Report explaining the view was of the Vincent Thomas Bridge and Los Angeles Harbor, taken from the living room, dining room, kitchen and rear outdoor patio area. There are eight trees blocking the applicant's view. Ms. Nelson reviewed the staff recommendations pointing out that the staff report recommended the avocado tree and Podocarpus trees be removed or trimmed, not to exceed twenty feet. The correct wording should be removed or trimmed to the height of ridgeline of the residence. Project Coordinator Nelson also pointed out changes in the draft Resolution. Exhibit A had a change to reflect the condition of the trees being trimmed to the ridgeline of the residence, item 13 needed an address correction for the foliage owner. Chair Green polled the Commission as to who had visited the site. Vice Chair Sweetnam excused himself from this application as he was a co-worker with the applicant. Commissioner Karmelich was requested to participate in this application. Richard Denno (applicant), 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road, discussed how he owned the property for 30 years, enjoying a spectacular view of the coast, and now has very little view. He requested that rubber tree #1, which is central to their view, be removed. Lacing would not help restore the view. He felt the trees on the foliage owners property had not been maintained and stressed that he felt it was fair to require the foliage owner to trim the trees to the ridgeline or remove them. Lacing trees would be difficult to enforce. Mrs. Denno (applicant), 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road, discussed the 30-year history of requesting the foliage owners to trim their trees. Jennie Cotrufo (foliage owner), 2248 Sunnyside Ridge Road, explained to the Commission that she has had her trees trimmed several times over the years. She stated that the trees were planted on her property by a previous owner to provide shade to the home since they have sixteen feet of glass in their living room. Regarding the rubber trees, Ms. Cotrufo stated they have been trimmed, topped and chopped in the past. She would rather the applicants have the trees removed than try to maintain the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 5 • trees at the ridgeline. If rubber tree #1 was replaced with a tree that had a nice canopy to provide shade she would be satisfied. She continued that without the shade tree the room would become very hot and they could not afford to run the air conditioning. Regarding the podocarpus tree, if it were laced, it would be a beautiful tree and she would agree to have it laced. Ms. Cotrufo stressed to the Commission that she and her husband are seniors and living on a pension. They cannot afford to spend their pension on tree trimming. Mr. Denno (in rebuttal) pointed out that they did not include in the application the trees that were being maintained, such as the flowering Eucalyptus. Their only concerns were for trees and foliage directly blocking their view. Commissioner A. Green wanted to verify with Ms. Cotrufo that she did indeed want the No. 1 rubber tree removed. Ms. Cotrufo stated she did want it removed, as well as rubber tree No. 2 and No. 3. Commissioner A. Green asked Ms. Cotrufo what she preferred to have done with the avocado tree. Ms. Cotrufo answered that she would prefer to keep the avocado tree since it is bearing fruit. She would be willing to lace it. She also stated that rubber tree No. 1 sends its limbs out 60 feet and mingles with the podocarpus tree. She felt if the limbs from the rubber tree were gone there would not be a problem with the podocarpus tree. Commissioner A. Green then asked about the trees Nos. 6 and 7 in the staff report, the multi-trunked succulent tree and the unknown tree on the property line. Ms. Cotrufo responded that those trees provide privacy to the yard and she would be willing to keep the trees trimmed to the ridgeline. Chairman Green asked Ms. Cotrufo about the replacement tree and how big it would have to be to provide shade. Ms. Cotrufo responded that she wasn't sure. She did state that it may not have to be planted in the ground, that there was the possibility it could be planted in a large planter or pot, as long as it gave them shade on the living room window. Chairman Green then asked Mr. Denno if the No. 1 tree, the rubber tree, were taken out what were his feelings as far as the recommendations presented for the trimming and lacing of the remaining trees. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 6 • 0 Mr. Denno responded that he would prefer a height limitation, as that would be easily understood for maintenance. Lacing bothered him, as the history of these trees was they were allowed to grow. He didn't feel that lacing was something that was enforceable. Mr. Denno added that regarding the avocado tree he didn't feel that cutting the height of the avocado tree, as opposed to lacing, would in any way affect the tree or it's ability to bear fruit. Commissioner A. Green moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Goern. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Goern expressed her concern about the removal of rubber tree No. 1 and what type of foliage or tree could replace it. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that the Commission does need to consider that, if that rubber tree is removed, there needs to be something to replace it to cover up the hole that will be left in the patio. She continued that they could not plant too much in that area without having it obstruct the view from above. Commissioner Boudreau expressed her concern that the roots of the rubber tree probably extend a considerable distance and may possibly go under the slab of the house. She felt removing the tree would be a major undertaking. Chairman Green summarized the Commission's discussion by stating trees 1,2, and 3 (the rubber trees) were to be removed, the stumps ground out, and the deck restored and a suitable potted replacement plant to be provided. The avocado tree was to be topped to the ridgeline. The podocarpus tree was to be topped to the ridgeline. If the topping of the avocado and the podocarpus is not acceptable to the foliage owner, then the trees can be removed and replaced with a tree or other foliage suitable to the foliage owner. The multi-trunk succulent was to be topped to the ridgeline. The hibiscus was to follow the staff recommendation. Trees 6 and 7 were to be topped to the ridgeline of the house. Commissioner Boudreau moved to adopt the revised staff recommendations and directed staff to prepare a Resolution for the consent calendar of June 5, 1997, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:10 P.M. there was a brief recess until 9:25 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 7 0 • 6. View Restoration Permit No. 32: Mr. and Mrs. John Banister, 6117 Scotmist Drive; Mr. Norman Williams, 6113 Scotmist Drive (TN) Chairman Green polled the Commission on who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site, therefore only the regular members could participate on this application. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She explained there were fourteen trees affecting the views on the two properties and all but two were on a transitional slope. Because there was some indication that the foliage owner and applicant were close to some type of agreement, Director Petru suggested that the foliage owner be allowed to speak first after the Public Hearing was opened. Chair Green asked the applicant if he had any objection to allowing the foliage owner to speak first. Mr. Bannister indicated he had no objection. Vice Chair Sweetnam mentioned that in reading the correspondence there was a letter indicating in 1994 this was a code enforcement case and that code enforcement had required the foliage to be trimmed. He asked staff why this case was now before the View Restoration Commission. Staff was not familiar with the history of any code enforcement case on the property. Chairman Green opened the Public Hearing. Alan Pendley (foliage owner) President of the Ridgegate Homeowners Association, 27920 Ridgecove Court, began by saying the Homeowners Association was willing to have all of the trees in question removed, therefore there should be no dispute. Mr. Pendley addressed Vice Chair Sweetnam's question regarding the code enforcement case by stating the trees in this application were not the ones addressed in the code enforcement case. Code Enforcement addressed hedges that were further down the slope. Since staff had recommended trimming and lacing the trees, Mr. Pendley stated that if the cost of removal was more than the cost of trimming and lacing, the Homeowners Association was willing to pay the difference in cost. John Bannister (applicant), 6117 Scotmist Drive, reviewed the history of the foliage since 1989 and the problem he has had in getting the Homeowners Association to comply with his request to restore his view. His issue now was what about the other shrubbery on the foliage owner's property and how the Commission would make sure it stays maintained and out of his viewing area. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 8 0 0 Chairman Green explained the Commission was not able to consider other shrubbery on the property as it was not part of Mr. Bannister's application. The View Restoration Commission can only rule on the subject application. The removal of the trees on the application can be ordered by the Commission, but once the removal occurs anything else that grows will be a code enforcement issue over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. Commissioner Long added that if everything listed in the application is removed from the property then there cannot possibly be any dispute. Project Coordinator Nelson added that once the foliage is removed Staff will take photos which will become the baseline for the view and any possible code enforcement in the future. Mr. Bannister asked what would happen if, once the trees were removed, there was new growth blocking his view. Would he have to submit a new application? Director Petru answered that it would become a code enforcement issue. She explained to Mr. Bannister that in the past code enforcement could not enforce the view ordinance because of the lawsuit filed against the city. That is no longer the case, and code enforcement can now enforce the view ordinance. Commissioner Long explained that if the trees that are the subject of the permit are cut down, and there is remaining growth that significantly impairs his view which he can document is post 1989 growth, then it would be appropriate for him to go to code enforcement . If the growth is pre 1989 growth or if he can't prove that is post 1989 growth, then he will need to do another permit application. Project Coordinator Nelson added that staff spent quite a bit of time on the properties identifying trees that were affecting the view. Staff added trees to the application because they felt they might affect the view. Nick Christopulos, 6203 Scotmist Drive, commented that two of the trees being removed will also help restore his view. He further commented that the Ridgegate Homeowners Association had, in the past, been difficult to deal with and thanked Mr. Pendley for being so cooperative in this issue. Commissioner Black moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 9 di OM Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to direct Staff to make revisions to the Resolution to remove all of the trees identified in the staff report and bring the Resolution back to the June 5, 1997 meeting for adoption as a consent calendar item, second by Commissioner Black. Approved (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Black commented that the first Thursday in July is July 3. She questioned whether the Commission was going to meet that night since it was before a long holiday weekend. Director Petru suggested the Commission cancel their regular meetings in July and conduct adjourned meetings on July 10 and July 24, 1997 (the second and fourth Thursdays) instead. The Commission agreed. A discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding code enforcement and the View Restoration Commission and how the code is interpreted regarding the 1989 view documentation rule and its interpretation. Commissioner Long suggested that the issue of documentation of an existing view be put on a future agenda for discussion. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Black moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:07 P.M. to Thursday, June 5, 1997 at Hesse park, 7:00 P.M N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\97MIN05.15. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 1997 PAGE 10