Loading...
VRC MINS 19980917 • APPROVED OCT BER 1, 1998 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Sweetnam at 7:03 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner McBride. Present: Commissioners Cordova, Drages, McBride, Mehlman, Mueller, and Vice Chair Sweetnam Absent: Commissioners Black, Green, Kipper, and Chair Long were excused Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to amend the agenda to include an introduction of the newest commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection it was so amended Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner McBride. Approved, (6-0) OTHER BUSINESS Vice Chair Sweetnam introduced the newest View Restoration Commissioner, Toby Cordova, to the Commission. Project Coordinator Nelson added that Commissioner Cordova has joined the Commission as an alternate member, and Commissioner Mueller has now been installed by the City Council as a full member of the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson updated the Commission on the status of the pre- application meeting for VRP No. 64 (agreement reached) and the pre-application for VRP No. 65 (scheduled for September 25th). Commissioner McBride requested an article from the Los Angeles Times regarding the ili I revised arborist guidelines be distributed to the Commission in their next agenda packet. He requested staff obtain a copy of the recently revised International Arborist Guidelines. Vice Chair Sweetnam also requested an article from the Los Angeles Times regarding the preferred trees that Southern California Edison recommended be included in the next agenda packet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 1998 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a missing word on page 2 of the minutes as well as changing the word "must" to "would have to" on page 4 of the minutes Commissioner McBride moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners Mueller and Cordova abstaining since they were not at that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 1 -APPEAL: Mr. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive (TN) Vice Chair Sweetnam asked the applicant and foliage owner if five minutes for their presentation and three minutes for rebuttal would be sufficient time. Both parties agreed it would be sufficient time. Vice Chair Sweetnam polled the commissioners as to who had visited the applicant and foliage owner's properties. Commissioners McBride and Cordova did not visit the foliage owner's property but felt they had made a reasonable effort to contact the foliage owner and did have a proper view of the foliage owner's property from the applicant's property. Commissioner Mehlman asked the Vice Chair to clarify if it was required for a commissioner to visit the foliage owner's property if a request was made. Vice Chair Sweetnam consulted the guidelines and determined that if a reasonable VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 2 • 0 effort had been made to visit the foliage owner's property and the Commissioners felt that they could make fair decisions based on the visit to the applicant's property, then they need not recuse themselves from hearing the application. Commissioners McBride and Cordova chose not to recuse themselves from the hearing. Staff Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report explaining the Commission would be making a decision on the foliage not covered in the original application (View Restoration Permit 17). She explained that the applicant felt that all of the foliage in the viewing area should be cut to the level of the applicant's deck, as ordered by VRP No. 17 for the foliage subject to that permit, whether or not the foliage caused a significant view impairment. Ms. Nelson distributed a photo board showing the foliage as it existed in October 1997, February 1998, and August 1998 for the commissioners to view. Looking at the photo board, Commissioner Mueller asked staff for clarification as to which handrail staff was recommending the foliage be trimmed to. Staff Coordinator Nelson clarified that it was the third rail from the top of the handrail. Vice Chair Sweetnam opened the public hearing. Ken Dyda (applicant) 5715 Capeswood Drive began by stating he was not asking for any changes in the terms of View Restoration Permit No. 17. However, he did not feel the terms of VRP No. 17 and the subsequent warrant issued by the court were complied with. He did not feel that the three trees covered under the permit (the Eucalyptus, Peach, and Pittosporum) were trimmed properly to the deck level and requested the commission order they be trimmed to comply with both the permit and the warrant. Secondly, Mr. Dyda stated that none of the trees or bushes that are part of the View Preservation permit existed or interfered with the view at the time of the View Restoration permit. However, if they had existed, he felt they would have interfered with the view and been subject to the same criteria. He commented that the foliage owner had planted as recently as six weeks ago trees and hedges along the common property line and these trees will only exacerbate the view problem. He stated that the VRC had made a determination of what constituted a significant view obstruction at the original hearing. He felt that interpretation was appropriate in reaching a decision for view preservation. He agreed with the staff recommendation that the trimming should be 8 feet above the top of the foliage owner's rear yard slope. However, he felt staff had taken an incorrect measurement, as they had taken the measurement from a point inside his lot line. He felt the top of the foliage owner's property was 1 foot below the level shown in the staff photos and the foliage should therefore be trimmed to the level of the fourth bar from the top of the deck handrail. Finally, Mr. Dyda stated that VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 3 trimming to the third bar would cause an immediate impact on the view with any growth at all. Trimming down to the deck level would allow for growth to the third bar from the top before there was a view impact. He suggested a better criteria would be when the foliage gets to the level of the second bar from the top, trimming should be done. He felt that would be an acceptable compromise for an appropriate trimming criteria to insure proper and continuing maintenance. It would also minimize the trimming frequency for the foliage owner. Padam Singh (foliage owner) 5714 Wildbriar Road began by stating that, as a good neighbor, he wanted to help Mr. Dyda with his view while maintaining his own privacy. Regarding how the foliage was measured to reach the eight-foot height, he disagreed with Mr. Dyda and felt that staff had properly measured the height of the foliage. He stated that the three trees covered under VRP No. 17 were properly trimmed down to the level specified in the permit. He further stated that he went beyond what was specified and trimmed the peach tree to a level below the deck. He emphasized that he spent quite a bit of time in his back yard and wanted his privacy preserved. He stated that a measurement taken from the bottom of the wooden plank up eight feet which allowed vegetation three feet above the chain link fence was a very comfortable measurement which will give him the privacy he wants and will give Mr. Dyda a spectacular view. Mr. Dyda (in rebuttal) stated that it was one thing to have branches grow into his view, but Mr. Singh has planted new trees along the property line whose trunks are higher than his deck. He commented that the fence staff used as a base measurement was well onto his property and not at the property line. Mr. Singh (in rebuttal) stated that regardless whose property the fence was on, the board at the bottom of the slope is where the slope starts and that is where the measurement should be taken from. He felt staff did their job well under the guidelines and thanked them. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 7:55 P.M., at the request of Commissioner Cordova, the commission took a short recess until 8:05 P.M. at which time they reconvened. Vice Chair Sweetnam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller asked staff for clarification on where the measurement was VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17,1998 PAGE 4 41110 taken from. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that staff took the range poles to Mr. Dyda's property and set them in the swale at the bottom of the slope that is between the chain link fence and the deck. Staff then measured up 8 feet from that point. She clarified that regarding the dispute over whose property the chain link fence was on could be remedied by changing the wording in the Resolution to reflect measurement taken from the swale that separates the two rear property lines. Commissioner Mueller asked staff to use the photo board and clarify exactly where on the photo the eight-foot mark would be. Project Coordinator Nelson used the photo board and showed the Commission that 8 feet would be right at the third rail from the top, as shown by the range pole in the photograph. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that after viewing the photographs the question that came to his mind was that of how often foliage has to be trimmed. He commented that in a 6-month period from February to August the foliage grew from an acceptable level into an unacceptable level. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that Mr. Singh had indicated he would be willing to trim his foliage twice a year. Commissioner McBride stated that it had been determined that Mr. Dyda was requesting a view from a sitting position. He felt that from the sitting position Mr. Dyda's kitchen blocks most of the view frame established in VRP No. 17. He commented that he could not see the Pittosporum from the seated position. Project Coordinator Nelson commented that the Pittosporum should have been included under VRP No. 17. However, the Pittosporum was mistakenly identified as a Myoporum under the original permit. Ms. Nelson commented that Mr. Singh has already agreed to trim the Pittosporum to comply with VRP No. 17. Therefore, the Pittosporum, Eucalyptus, and Peach tree would be the three trees covered under the original permit. The other trees on the property would be subject to the decisions made tonight by this commission. Commissioner McBride felt that the Commission's vote tonight would be whether or not to uphold the staff decision with regard to the foliage that was not subject to VRP No. 17 and not whether the foliage owner was in compliance with VRP No. 17. He was concerned that the foliage owner had attempted to work with his neighbor and comply by attending the pre-application meeting and trim foliage, as well as agree to maintain VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 5 0 the foliage on a regular basis. Therefore, he felt the Commission should uphold the staffs recommendations. Commissioner Mueller felt the Commission should discuss what height the foliage should be trimmed and take into consideration Mr. Dyda's suggestions to trim the foliage to the deck level to allow for growth and how often the foliage should be trimmed. He felt that the Commission should make decisions that are very specific and exact so there would be no room for misinterpretation. Commissioner McBride moved to adopt the Resolution, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that language in the Resolution should be changed to reflect the foliage will be trimmed on a semiannual basis rather than annually. He further suggested that in Section 5 of the Resolution language be added stating that the foliage being covered in this Resolution did not exist as view impairing foliage on November 17, 1989. He also asked staff what the wording was going to be to determine the height of the foliage. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that the language would be changed to read foliage would be trimmed to a height 8 feet above the bottom of the applicant's rear yard slope. Commissioner McBride amended his motion to accept the amendments, thereby adopting View Restoration Commission Resolution 98-7 as amended, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Mueller dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 3. DISCUSSION OF AUDIONISUAL (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson updated the Commission on the progress made on purchasing a digital camera and color printer. She explained that purchases could possibly be made next month and staff would be able to use the equipment at the November View Restoration Commission meeting, if scheduled. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Project Coordinator Nelson discussed the three items that would be on the agenda for VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 PAGE 6 o • the October 1 meeting. A discussion followed on the requirement of commissioners to visit foliage owners' properties. Commissioner McBride suggested putting an item on a future agenda for discussion on some type of guidelines for commissioners on what would be considered reasonable notice to the applicant or foliage owner in regards to a site visit. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Joe Oliveri 6 Chaparral Lane commented that he has an application that will be heard by the commission October 1. He explained that he had initially invited Commissioners to visit his property at any time, but now requested he be notified before a Commissioner visited the property. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McBride moved to adjourn,seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:48 P.M. to Thursday, October 1, 1998. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17,1998 PAGE 7