Loading...
VRC MINS 19970403 r • APPROVED MAY 15 , 1997 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 3, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:05 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Sweetnam. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, A. Green, Goern, Karmelich, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioner Long (excused) and Gee Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Carter, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Black moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (8-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed information regarding a legal challenge to the town of Tiburon's View Preservation Ordinance, a supplemental Staff Report for View Restoration Permit 24, and a request for continuance for View Restoration Permit 24. Lastly, he informed the Commission that Project Coordinator Carter would be leaving the city and introduced the new staff member, Emmanuel Ursu, who would be taking his place. Vice Chair Sweetnam reported on a meeting he attended with the Crestmont Homeowners Association. He also reported on a presentation made to the Council of Homeowners Association. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 21 - RESOLUTION Project Coordinator Nelson explained the Resolution now incorporated the changes and language discussed at the February 20, 1997 hearing, the night the permit was approved. Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Chairman that only the Commissioners present 0 0 for the public hearing on February 20 were eligible to vote on the Resolution adoption. After checking the minutes, the Commissioners eligible were Commissioners Boudreau, A. Green, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair R. Green. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt Resolution 97-2, as presented, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Adopted, (4-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 24: Mr. Scott Giordano, 109 Rockinghorse Road (HC) Project Coordinator Carter reported to the Commission that one of the foliage owners, Mrs. Higa, submitted a letter to staff stating that she was unable to attend tonight's meeting, and requesting the item be continued to May 1, 1997. Commissioner Boudreau moved to continue the item to May 1, 1997, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (8-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 20: Mr. S.J. Menzelos, 5113 Oconto Drive; Mr. Jang Yi Wang, 5117 Oconto Drive (HC) Project Coordinator Carter presented the staff report and began by stating this application was originally submitted October 16, 1990 but was not heard by the previous View Restoration Committee due to litigation. He explained that the 1990 draft staff report had since been revised to reflect current conditions. He also distributed a memo to the Commission which expanded on the discussion and recommendations of the current staff report. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Mr. S.J. Menzelos, 5113 Oconto Drive began by stating he and his wife were original owners of their house, which was built in 1966. He also stated they had paid an extra price for their home because of the view at that time. He further stated the view had been completely blocked for the past twelve years because of the tree growth on the property below them, and they would like to have their view restored. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 2 110 0 Mr. Hal Kaufman, 5071 Silver Arrow Drive stated he had trimmed and laced several of his trees. He also was concerned that trimming the tops of his pines may kill the trees and they had been left there specifically because they help shade and cool their home. Mr. Ronald Ross, 5074 Silver Arrow Drive agreed that the trees on his property do exceed the roofline of his home. However he strongly disagreed that the trees be trimmed to twenty feet as recommended in the staff report. He was very concerned that reducing the pine trees to twenty feet in height would certainly kill them, leaving stumps. He felt that the only alternative would be to remove the trees, as lacing would not lessen the impact of the blocked view and trimming would kill the trees. Mr. Sam Huang, 27317 Warrior Drive read from a letter which he submitted to the Commission. In summary, he stated that if the applicant's request was granted, he would be left with only one peach tree and three small trees. He felt the existing trees act as a physical barrier between his property and his neighbors, and ensure privacy and security for his home. If the trees were to be removed he requested a permit to build a six foot fence around his property for added privacy. Further, he noted the findings of a final grading compaction report from June, 1965 which recommended planting vegetation as a means of erosion control on the slope. He felt that if nine trees were removed from his slope there would be the possibility of mudslides into his home. Finally, Mr. Huang questioned why bushes and vegetation growing between 5113 and 5117 Oconto Drive weren't removed to restore the view. Mr. Huang stated he was strongly against the applicant's request because it would give easements to private parties without any compensation to the landowner and it would violate his constitutional rights as a resident of the community and as a landowner. Chair R. Green asked for a roll call on which Commissioners had visited the site. All seven regular members present had visited the site. Therefore, there would be no need to use the alternate members for this application. The Commissioners felt the most efficient way to handle this application was to review the foliage property by property, beginning with the foliage at 5071 Silver Arrow Drive. Commissioner Black began by asking Project Coordinator Carter if trimming a 40-foot high pine to 20 feet would harm the tree. Project Coordinator Carter responded that there was a possibility it would, as there would be very little foliage left after the tree was cut. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Kauffman to return to the podium. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 3 0 0 Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Kauffman if he knew what kind of pine was in his side yard, and if he would rather have the pine trimmed down to 20 feet or removed. Mr. Kauffman was not sure what type of pine was in his side yard. He also answered that, given the choice, he would prefer that his trees be left alone. However, if he could have a reputable tree person guarantee that trimming the tree would not kill it, he would prefer that, since the tree provides shade from the afternoon sun to his home. Chair R. Green asked Staff how close to the 1,000 foot radius these trees were located. Project Coordinator Carter responded that policy states that if part of the yard touches the 1,000 foot boundary, then the entire yard could be considered within the radius. He was not sure of the exact distances in this case, but estimated it was very close to 1,000 feet. Chair R. Green then asked Staff Coordinator Carter how aggressively the tree could be laced, at its present height, and what kind of view through an aggressively laced tree would be restored. Staff Coordinator Carter responded that decisions on how aggressively a tree can be laced and survive would have to be made on a tree by tree basis by an arborist. Chair R. Green felt that if the trees in question were approaching the edge of the 1,000 boundary, aggressive lacing may restore the applicant's view and as a result, there would not be the need to address the issue of removing four forty-foot pine trees. He also felt that trimming the ficus down to fifteen feet should be the recommended course of action. He then asked Mr. Menzelos, the applicant, if that would be satisfactory. Mr. Menzelos replied that he would not know if that would be satisfactory until the trees at 27317 Warrior Drive were addressed, since those trees presented the more immediate view blockage problem. Mrs. Kauffman informed the Commission that the ficus in question were thinned just one year ago, so the growth they were observing was recent. Given the choice of having the ficus removed or trimmed, she preferred to have the ficus removed. Commissioner A. Green asked if the grove of trees designated "H," "I", and "J" in the Staff Report could be identified on the photographs. He asked Project Coordinator Carter if the trees were of such a density, that lacing would not effectively restore the view. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 4 • 0 Project Coordinator Carter responded, that in his opinion, lacing would not satisfactorily restore the view. Commissioner Black asked if reducing trees "H", "I", and "J" to twenty feet in height would restore the view. Project Coordinator Carter responded that cutting the trees to twenty feet would, in his opinion, restore the view. The Commission then considered the trees at 5074 Silver Arrow Drive. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that the four pines at this address appear to have been recently laced. He asked Mr. Menzelos if the trees in this laced condition alleviated the problem for him. Mr. Menzelos responded that lacing could possibly solve the problem, but he could not be sure until a decision on the trees that cause the most view obstruction, located at 27137 Warrior Drive, was reached. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that the Commission could recommend removing the trees or cutting the trees to twenty feet, but in the event the applicant and the tree owner agree to something less than that, such as lacing, they were free to pursue it. The Commission then discussed the trees located at 27137 Warrior Drive. Commissioner Goern began by commenting that she did obtain permission to go into the backyard at 27137 Warrior Drive. She commented that the trees were on a steep slope and if they were cut down there would need to be some sort of replacement ground cover. She also observed a small retaining wall. Commissioner Black commented that she didn't see any way that the view could be adequately restored without cutting the trees down. Commissioner Boudreau commented she had visited the site when this project first came before the View Restoration Commission, and was surprised at the amount of growth that had taken place since then. She felt the foliage had not been maintained, trimmed, or taken care of in that time. Chair R. Green agreed, commenting that even an aggressive lacing would probably not help restore the view. He then asked Staff if the foliage owner could construct a six foot fence along the property that would help protect their privacy. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 5 411 • Principal Planner Rojas answered that if the proposed fence met the requirements of the Planning Department's Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process there should be no problem building a fence. Chair Green summarized what the Commission had decided by stating, 1) at 5071 Silver Arrow Drive the pine trees were to be topped to 20 feet and the ficus trees were to be removed and de-rooted, 2) at 5074 Silver Arrow Drive the pine trees would be removed, the stump left and replacement ground cover provided, and 3) at 23717 Warrior Drive, the oleander trees were to be thinned and reduced to the ridgeline of the residence, all pine trees were to be removed, the stumps left in, and replacement ground cover be provided, the cypress tree was to be removed, and the ficus tree and peach tree were to be trimmed to the ridgeline of the residence. Chair R. Green then closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the recommendations as outlined by Chair Green and have Staff prepare a Resolution for the Consent Calendar of the May 1, 1997 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black, approved (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:37 P.M. there was a brief recess until 8:50 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 27: Mr. Ray Cambell, 6461 Via De Anzar (HC) Project Coordinator Carter presented the staff report. He began by informing the Commission that the application was originally submitted in March, 1991 but never heard by the View Restoration Committee due to litigation. The subject of the application was two pine trees. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing Mr. Ray Campbell, 6461 Via De Anzar began by stating he had lived at his property since 1977. He stated the trees had been trimmed once by the foliage owner several years ago, but had not been trimmed since. He distributed to the Commission pictures taken several years ago from his property and recent pictures documenting the view situation. Elizabeth Burns, 2213 Via Velardo began by telling the Commission that she VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 6 0 0 appreciated the value of a view, and therefore had already cut approximately 20 trees down to the ground so that most of her slope is open to the view. The two pine trees in question she would like to keep as they are a nice addition to her yard and help shade her home from the sun. Chair R. Green asked for a roll call to determine which Commissioners had visited the site. All Commissioners present had visited the site. Commissioner A. Green began by commenting that the slope the trees are on is covered very heavily in ivy, and if the trees were cut the replacement trees would need to be compatible with all of the ivy. Chair R. Green did not feel there was a privacy issue on this property, as you could not look down into the foliage owners yard unless you were on the very edge of the applicants' property. Commissioner Boudreau commented that lacing would not restore the view in this case because of the size and location of the trees. Crowning the trees might make the trees too top heavy. Chair R. Green closed the public hearing. Commissioner Boudreau moved to adopt the Staff's recommendations and prepare a Resolution for the consent calendar of the May 1, 1997 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Boudreau discussed her feelings on the lack of a quorum at the last meeting and how important it was for all Commissioners to visit the sites and attend the meetings. Chair R. Green responded that Staff would notify him as soon as they knew of any absenteeism by a Commissioner. Chair R. Green then thanked Project Coordinator Carter for his time and hard work he has put in for the View Restoration Commission and wished him well on his future projects. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 7 • ADJOURNMENT Commissioner A. Green moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:25 P.M. to Thursday, May 1, 1997 at Hesse park, 7:00 P.M. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\97MIN04.03 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1997 PAGE 8