Loading...
VRC MINS 19970501 6 • APPROVED JUNE 19, 1997 CD CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 1, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:09 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Long. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioner Marshall (excused) and Commissioner Gee Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Petru, Project Coordinator Carter, 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, (8-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director Petru distributed to the Commission copies of a Letter to the Editor and an editorial from the Palos Verdes Peninsula News regarding the removal of a street tree along Palos Verdes Drive West. She also noted the Commissioners had received additional information from the foliage owner regarding View Restoration Permit No. 29. Vice Chair Sweetnam informed the Commission of the death of past View Restoration Commissioner Paul Weisz. Chair R. Green requested a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Weisz. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 1997 Commissioner A. Green moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. Approved, (4-0-4) with Commissioners Boudreau, Goern, Long, and Vice Chair Sweetnam abstaining since they were excused from the meeting. 4 do 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 27- RESOLUTION Commissioner A. Green moved to adopt V.R.C. Resolution No. 97-3, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. Approved, (7-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 20 - RESOLUTION Commissioner Boudreau moved to adopt V.R.0 Resolution No. 97-4 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (7-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 24: Mr. Scott Giordano, 109 Rockinghorse Road (HC) Chair R. Green began, since this was a continued item, by polling the Commissioners not present at the original meeting as to whether they had visited the site and reviewed the minutes of the meeting. All Commissioners present had visited the site and reviewed the minutes. Since only six regular members were present at the meeting, Commissioner Karmelich was designated to participate on this item. Project Coordinator Carter presented the staff report. He reviewed the original report and discussed the concerns the Commission had at the last meeting, which included: 1) slope stability and what effect removing trees would have on the slope; 2) the effect tree removal would have on the pool and deck; 3) the effects on the applicant's view if the pine trees were heavily laced rather than removed; and, 4) who owned the tree identified as "Al" in the staff report. He explained that after meeting with the City Geologist and City Arborist they recommended cutting the trees at the base, rather than removing the roots, so the roots can retain the slope. As the roots die, the new vegetation should be well enough in place to then maintain the slope. In regards to lacing trees "G1" and "G2", Mr. Carter did not feel that lacing the trees would be sufficient to restore the view and that these trees should be cut at the base. The tree identified as "G3" in the staff report could be laced as recommended. Finally, Mr. Carter indicated that he had spoken with the neighbor of Mr. Alberio, who gave his permission to have the tree identified as "Al" removed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 2 e e Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was reopened. Scott Giordano (applicant) 109 Rockinghorse Road began by stating he was in agreement with staff recommendations. His only comment regarding the recommendations was that he felt the tree identified as "G3" did not have to be laced, but could be left alone. Kimberly Higa (foliage owner) 2176 Rockinghorse Drive objected to having her trees identified as "GI" and "G2" cut down. She again stressed that she felt having her trees cut constituted having something taken from her and she deserved some type of compensation. She also requested more time to review the report, as she had received it only that night, and to be able to contact an attorney regarding her trees. Commissioner A. Green asked Ms. Higa if her position was still the same regarding trees "El" and "Fl". He reminded her that she had previously stated she did not mind if those trees were removed. Ms. Higa responded that she would like to reread the geologist's report and recommendations before answering the question. Mr. Gilbert Alberio (foliage owner) 2177 Rockinghorse Drive stated he had no problems with the staff recommendations regarding his property. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chair R. Green asked staff, if trees were removed, would the foliage owner have the choice of replacement vegetation. Project Coordinator Carter explained that generally the condition is written so that a landscape plan is laid out first so both the foliage owner and applicant can discuss it. It would ultimately be approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The City's geotechnical consultant will be submitting a list of trees and shrubbery that will fit the criteria for this property. Chair R. Green asked if there would be a replacement tree specified for the tree that is coming out of the deck, as he was concerned there shouldn't be a hole left in the middle of the deck. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 3 • Project Coordinator Carter wasn't sure what the recommendation would be and commented that he would have to wait to see the list prepared by the City's geotechnical consultant. Commissioner A. Green brought up the issue of"telephone pole" type trees being left on the property once the view was restored. He felt several trees on the property could fall into this category and wanted to make sure the foliage owner was aware of what could happen if trees were topped rather than removed. Project Coordinator Carter pointed out that the City arborist recommended that for successful lacing of trees, the lacing be done during a particular time of year. Commissioner A. Green mentioned that his notes indicated that the tree identified as "Dl" was recommended to be laced, however, the owner had indicated that he did not mind if the tree was removed. Therefore, the recommendation on the Resolution should be changed from laced to removed. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Mr. Gilbert Alberio disagreed with the Commission and stressed that he had always said the tree identified as "Dl" could be laced, not removed. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green and there being no objection the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested there be wording in the recommendation as to the timing for lacing of trees, so as to protect the trees. Project Coordinator Carter asked the Commission what their recommendation would be concerning the tree identified as "G3". Vice Chair Sweetnam responded that since Mr. Giordano no longer wanted to have that tree removed or laced, they should go with that recommendation, which would be to take no action. Project Coordinator summarized the action as follows: "Al" to be trimmed to 16 feet or the ridge line, whichever is lower, or cut the tree to the base. "A2" to be trimmed or laced. "Bl" to be laced. "Dl", "D2, "El" to be cut to 16 feet or the ridge line, or cut the tree to the base. "Fl" trim and maintain at 16 feet. "GI" and "G2" to be trimmed to 16 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 4 • 0 feet or the ridge line, or cut the tree to the base. "G3" to be removed from the application. "Hl" cut to 16 feet or the ridge line. And "H2" cut to 16 feet or the ridge line. And finally, replace trees that are removed with trees or bushes as the geologist and arborist suggested and to screen the deck and pool area to ensure the privacy on the Higa property. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the revised recommendations as stated by staff, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (7-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining. Director Petru noted the fifteen-day appeal period that would go into effect once the Resolution is adopted, which would be at the next regular meeting on May 15, 1997. PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Black moved to revise the agenda to hear View Restoration Permit No. 30 before View Restoration Permit No. 29, as it appeared to be a shorter item, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (8-0). 5. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO 30: Mr. and Mrs. Dean Lowrey, 6402 Seabryn Drive (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report summarizing the trees in question and where the view area was located on the applicant's property. One correction was made to the conditions of approval on the staff report. In this instance staff was not recommending replacement foliage. Chair R. Green polled the Commission as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Barbara Lowrey (applicant) 6402 Seabryn Drive explained they are original owners of their home and when they bought the property there was no view obstruction. She did not feel trimming the trees was a privacy issue for their neighbors and requested the Commission consider trimming the pine and ash trees obstructing her view. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 5 • 0 Commissioner Long asked Ms. Lowrey if lacing the pine trees would be satisfactory in restoring the view. Ms. Lowrey responded she agreed with what the staff report was recommending. Mr. Iry Eisenstein (foliage owner) 6403 Parklynn Drive agreed that work needed to be done on the trees and that they were indeed very tall. He agreed with the recommendation that the four pines be removed. However, there are five pine trees in the immediate area and he requested clarification as to which four trees were being removed. He also acknowledged that the ash tree was very tall. However, he requested an expert give recommendations on how the ash could be cut to possibly grow outward instead of up. His only issue regarding privacy was from a viewing deck constructed on the applicant's property that when used gave a view directly into several rooms of his home. Finally, he questioned why replacement trees were not recommended when trees were being taken away, which would be leaving holes on his property. Commissioner Black asked if he would prefer to have the ash tree taken out and replaced with a different type of tree. Mr. Eisenstein responded that he would prefer the ash tree stay. Director Petru asked Chair R. Green which of the two alternate members would be voting on this application. Commissioner Karmelich responded that he believed it was Commissioner Long's turn to vote on the application. Therefore, Commissioner Long was designated to participate on this item. Project Coordinator Nelson commented that staff would return to the foliage owner's residence and make a clarification as to which four pine trees were to be removed. Commissioner A. Green moved to close the public hearing, second by Commissioner Boudreau. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chair R. Green reminded the Commission that when taking a tree down below sixteen feet, privacy issues of the foliage owner needed to be considered. If the Commission determined that trimming the foliage would intrude unduly or unreasonably on the privacy of the foliage owner, the Commission can go no further in trimming the tree VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 6 0 11110 without some remediation. He felt in this instance removal of the trees would be leaving a big gap on the property. Commissioner Boudreau asked how many feet the pine trees would have to be topped to be even with the ridge line. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that she could only make a guess, as it would be a significant amount, possibly 20 feet. Commissioner Long felt that complete removal of the four pine trees would adversely affect the privacy of the foliage owners to some degree and would like to see some type of replacement foliage recommended. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested that a five-gallon tree be used as replacement foliage. Commissioner A. Green wondered if the replacement would be a tree for a tree type replacement, or would it be one replacement tree for a cluster of removed trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt the ash tree could be a problem because of the way it grows. The Commission could recommend the tree be kept to a height of sixteen feet, but the foliage owner would have to address how to keep it at that height. Project Coordinator Nelson summarized what the Commission had decided to this point. She began by stating that Staff would revisit the site to clarify which four pines were involved. These four pines would be removed, the stumps ground down and replaced with some type of five gallon tree to compensate for privacy issues. The ash tree would be trimmed to a height of sixteen feet. Commissioner Long made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation, subject to staff clarification of the trees in question, with the amendment that replacement foliage to be selected by the foliage owner, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:47 P.M. there was a brief recess until 8:58 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. 6. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 29: Mr. Norbert Keilbach, 3632 Greve Drive (TN) Before presentation of the staff report, Chair R. Green polled the Commissioners as to VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 7 0 0 who had visited the site. All Commissioners present had visited the site. Vice Chair Sweetnam recused himself from considering the project, as he is friends with the applicant. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She explained there were eight trees currently blocking the applicant's view, ranging in height from 20 to 60 feet. She reviewed with the Commissioners the revised findings that were distributed before the meeting, and called their attention to the revised Resolution which reflected the revised findings. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Norbert Keilbach (applicant) 3632 Greve Drive began by distributing pictures of the view from their property in 1968, 1973, and at the present time. He explained that he had signed a covenant for his property stating he would cut trees if they blocked views from other neighbor's properties, so he was not asking anything he was not willing to do himself. He did not feel lacing the pine trees would be an option, as it would not help restore his view. He felt the pine trees would need to be topped to restore his view. John Echevarrieta (foliage owner) 30327 Ganado Drive explained he had handed out copies of various photographs to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. He explained they were the original owners of the property and had bought this particular property so they could plant and create a special environment for themselves. Since being contacted by staff, Mr. Echevarrieta has topped the oak, the olive, and the plum tree. He would not agree to having the pine trees removed, but would agree to lacing and/or "windowing" the pines to create a view through them. Commissioner Boudreau asked the applicant if it were evident to him that the foliage owner had topped the three trees mentioned. Mr. Keilbach responded that the trees were only trimmed slightly and were still blocking his view. He mentioned that most of the Commissioners had visited his property after the foliage owner had trimmed his trees. Mr. Keilbach added that there was another pine tree on the property that had died and a stump was left. The stump now stands approximately six feet above his pad height and requested that it be added to the application. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Keilbach if the three pine trees were removed would he be satisfied with the staff recommendation for replanting. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 8 0 0 Mr. Keilbach stated he would not be satisfied with replanting and would have to appeal the decision. Mr. Echevarrieta commented that he felt staff and the Commissioners should have come onto his property to see the trees from his point of view so they could come up with some type of reasonable balance. Project Coordinator Nelson explained she had tried to make contact with him, however she could not get through to the foliage owner. Commissioner Long asked the foliage owner, if the pine trees were removed, was there any replanting that could be done that would satisfy him. Mr. Echevarrieta responded that whatever was planted could never replace what is now there. The pines are more than thirty years old and nothing could replace them. One of the pines was the family Christmas tree one year. Commissioner Long then asked Mr. Echevarrieta if he would consent to having the pines removed or would he prefer to have the trees topped. Mr. Echevarrieta answered he would not consent to having his trees removed. Commissioner Long asked staff what the result of topping the three pines would be. Project Coordinator Nelson replied they would become "telephone poles". Commissioner A. Green moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Black began by stating she didn't see any way the pine trees could be laced to restore the view. She felt they either had to come down or be topped. Chair R. Green felt that topping the trees would probably restore views. Commissioner Long asked Staff if there would still be foliage on the trees if they were topped to the level of the applicant's pad. Staff Coordinator Nelson responded that there may still be foliage. Most of the foliage however is up high, so there would not be much foliage left. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 9 0 0 Commissioner Long asked Staff about topping pine tree number 4, the olive, and the scrub oak to the level of the pad. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that those trees would probably be all right to top to the level of the pad, however the plum tree may be down far enough that only a small portion of the top would have to be removed. Commissioner Long suggested amending the staff recommendation to recommend the removal of the pine trees 1, 2, and 3 with the consent of the foliage owner and replacement or, if the foliage owner does not grant consent, then the trees are to be topped to the level of the applicant's pad. Commissioner Long moved to adopt V.R.0 Resolution No. 97-5 with an amendment that pine trees 1, 2, and 3 should be removed with the consent of the foliage owner and replaced with two trees, shrubs, or bushes to be selected by the foliage owner, from trees recommended by staff. However if the foliage owner does not agree to removal then all three trees shall be topped to the level of the applicant's pad, second by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-0). Director Petru stated that since the Commission had adopted the V.R.0 Resolution, the fifteen-day appeal period would begin the next day, May 2, 1997. NEW BUSINESS Chair R. Green asked Director Petru if the City Attorney had given an answer on whether spouses were allowed to accompany Commissioners on site visits. Director Petru responded that she had not received an answer as yet from the City Attorney. Chair R. Green suggested that spouses not accompany Commissioners until there is an answer from the City Attorney. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Project Coordinator Nelson informed the Commission that on the May 15, 1997 meeting it would be hearing View Restoration Permit Nos. 28, 32, and 34. The June 5 meeting will include View Restoration Permit Nos. 31 and 38. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 10 * • COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Maureen Ford, 30659 Ganado Drive told the Commission that she is the owner of a property with a beautiful view, but also has quite a bit of foliage on it. She appreciated the consideration the Commission gave to both applicants and foliage owners in the cases it hears. She also commented that perhaps the Commission or staff should note if an applicant also has vegetation or foliage that is not in code compliance. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner A. Green moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:47 P.M. to Thursday, May 15, 1997 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\97 M I N 05.01 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 197 PAGE 11