Loading...
VRC MINS 19990902 1111 APPROVED DEC' 4 . .R 2, 1999 VIEW RESTORTION COMMISSION REGLUAR MEETING September 2, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:10 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Drages. Present: Commissioners Drages, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chairman Long. Commission Cordova arrived at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Mehlman was recused and left at 8:00 p.m. Absent: Commissioners Black (excused), Green and McBride. Also present were Project Coordinator E. Ursu, and Recording Secretary R. Ursu. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Chairman Long. There being no objection, the agenda was approved. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Ursu announced and welcomed Tom Long as the new Chairman of the View Restoration Commission, Commissioner Drages as a regular member of the Commission and Royce Ursu as the new recording Secretary for the View Restoration Commission. Project Coordinator Ursu distributed and briefly discussed several items of communication with the Commission: 1) A copy of an article, 'Is It Right' written by Mr. Bud Hustler, 6614 Abbottswood Drive, published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper on August 28, 1999; 2) A copy of the Staff Report and Draft Amendments to the current view restoration and preservation guidelines for the September 7, 1999 City Council Hearing; and 3) A copy of the September 2, 1999 View Restoration Updated Project Status Log. Commissioner Sweetnam discussed an error made in the City Council Minutes of the July 19, 1999 City Council Ad Hoc Committee workshop, and discussed the Public Works street tree planting program that originally included Canary Island Pine trees. He stated that Public Works department representatives told him that Canary Island Pines would not be in the tree-planting program. III 0 CONSENT CALENDAR 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1999 Commissioner Sweetnam moved to continue approval of the June 3, 1999 minutes to the next View Restoration Commission meeting, since there was not a quorum of the View Restoration Commission members present at the June 3, 1999 meeting. There being no objection, the minutes were continued. CONTINUED BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 55: Mr. and Mrs. Walter Marshall, 28817 Cedarbluff Drive (EU) A roll call was taken to see which Commissioners who were present had visited the site. Commissioners Drages, Cordova, Mueller, Sweetnam and Chairman Long had visited the site. Commissioner Mehlman was recused because she had to leave early. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the Staff report. He explained that on April 2, 1998, the View Restoration Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-04 which required the trimming of one Silver Dollar Eucalyptus tree, one Pittosporum tree and one Myoporum hedge located on the Manson property at 28839 Cedarbluff Drive, in order to restore the view from the Marshall's property at 28817 Cedarbluff Drive. As a condition of approval of the permit, the Commission required the foliage owner to trim the foliage every six months in order to preserve the restored view. Mr. Ursu explained that the purpose of the hearing was two fold; first, to report to the Commission as to the adequacy of the maintenance schedule and of the foliage owner's ability to maintain the foliage in compliance with the conditions of approval and second, to give the Commission the opportunity to amend the conditions of approval and maintenance schedule. Based on Staffs analysis and obeservations it appeared to Staff that the trimming had been executed properly and adequately. Staff recommended that the Commission review Staffs observations of the maintenance trimming schedule and consider whether or not revisions to the schedule are necessary. If the Commission determines that changes are necessary, then accept public testimony and take action, which would be memorialized by minute order. This concluded the Staff report. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 Page 2 of 6 • 0 Commissioner Mueller asked for clarification of the first sentence at the top of page five of the Staff Report since half of the sentence was missing. Project Coordinator Ursu apologized that part of the sentence was missing and explained that the missing language stated Staffs observations after the July 14, 1999 site visit. He stated that there was a disagreement between the applicant's and Staffs observation as to which point the base measurement of the foliage would be taken from. The applicant felt the measurement was to be from the ground level on the outside (foliage owner side) of the fence which is approximately six to eight inches lower than the applicant's pad level. (According to the applicant, the original building pad level was approximately six inches lower than the existing level). It was the applicant's opinion that the foliage was trimmed 12 to 18 inches above the required level, not 6 to 12 inches higher as measured by Staff. Furthermore, the applicant believed that the foliage was to be trimmed to a height within one foot of the top of the fence. Staff believed that the measurement should be taken from the current ground elevation which existed when the original Staff report and Commission decision was made, not from an elevation which may have existed before View Restoration Permit No. 55 was processed. Staff was seeking the View Restoration Commissions' clarification of the ambiguity of the base measurement. Walter Marshall (applicant), 28817 Cedarbluff Drive, presented and distributed photographs taken of the view and foliage from his property. He stated that during the first hearing on April 2, 1998, privacy was not an issue, and therefore believed that privacy should not be an issue now. Mr. Marshall discussed his view of the horizon line, stating the site inspections were conducted on a foggy, misty day. He further stated that he and Project Coordinator Ursu disagreed on the measurement of the height of trimming required because the view plane could not be determined. Mr. Marshall concluded, stating that he felt the only empirical method was to use a laser for calculations in order to determine and identify the view plane. Mr. Marshall felt that the semiannual trimming schedule was a fair time frame, but felt that the tree should be trimmed to a lower height. He requested that the foliage not exceed the maximum ridgeline, and be enforced as stated in the Guidelines and Procedures, and not be permitted to be left at three feet above the ridgeline. Commissioners Drages, Sweetnam, and Mueller asked the applicant for clarification and for further details regarding the photographs submitted. Mr. Marshall answered the Commissions questions stating that the photographs were taken from a standing position, on different dates throughout the years. He further stated that there were no photographs showing the ocean three feet above the ridgeline. Chairman Long stated that although the foliage owner, Mr. Manson had indicated that although he could not attend the hearing, he did not wish for there to be a continuance. He further stated that Mr. Manson agreed with the Staffs recommendation, but had expressed some concerns in a letter dated August 26, 1999, which was distributed to the Commission. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 Page 3 of 6 • 0 Commissioner Sweetnam moved to Close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Drages. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. The Commission reviewed and discussed the minutes from April 2, 1998. Chairman Long stated that when he visited the Marshall property, he felt that there was not a large window for the Ocean View to be restored. Commissioner Sweetnam stated that if the Commission was to amend the Resolution, than there must be a notice of public hearing. Project Coordinator Ursu explained that the notice of public hearing had been posted, so the View Restoration Commission could make any necessary changes to the resolution tonight. Chairman Long specified that the hearing had been noticed, and that the conditions of approval in exhibit A could be amended. Project Coordinator Ursu clarified that the Commission could in fact determine whether any changes needed to be made to the resolution, then deliberate and discuss the changes to be made tonight. Chairman Long reviewed the language in the Guidelines and Resolution, and discussed with the Commission and Staff the best way to analyze the maintenance schedule review. Commissioner Mueller stated that when he visited the applicant's property, it was apparent that the trimming of the hedge was not done evenly. He took a measurement and found a six-inch difference in the height of the hedge from one end to the other end. Commissioner Mueller asked how much the hedge would have to be lowered in order for one to see the ocean. Chairman Long responded, stating that the hedge could be lowered to the level of the ridgeline of the house. He further stated that he thought the applicant made a good suggestion regarding using an instrument to measure the view plane, if the City Council would authorize it. Commissioner Drages stated that she visited the site on a clear day, and when she sat at the table, she could see the ocean. Chairman Long stated that he could see the ocean from a standing position, but not from a seated position. He asked Staff to clarify the location of the viewing area, and the perspective that the Commission should be considering. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that in the original Staff Report the viewing area was identified as the living room, kitchen, den and patio. He further stated, that the prior VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1999 Page 4 of 6 0 0 practice in View Restoration cases was to assess the view from a standing position, unless the view was normally seen from a seated position. Chairman Long clarified that he could only see the ocean when he stood out over the slope, and asked other Commissioners for their thoughts. Commissioner Cordova stated that when she visited the site, it was a clear, sunny day and she could see the ocean in the distance. She felt that the view should be taken from a seated position. Commissioner Cordova further stated that when she measured the hedge, it had been trimmed. Commissioner Mueller stated that when he measured the hedge, it was uneven. The height varied from three to nine inches from the right corner to the left corner of the hedge. Commissioner Drages agreed, stating that the right hand side of the hedge was higher than the left, and stated that the lower hedge was four feet above the pad level. Chairman Long stated that the ocean view had not been restored, when taken from a standing position in the yard. He asked the Commission for their input regarding the maintenance schedule. Commissioner Cordova stated that even though the trimming had occurred, the hedge still impaired the view. Chairman Long asked Staff to clarify the height of the hedge in relation to the ridgeline. Project Coordinator Ursu responded stating the foliage is approximately one foot above the ridgeline; therefore, one more foot could be trimmed. Commissioner Sweetnam asked Staff if the height of the lower fence had been determined. Project Coordinator Ursu explained that the lower fence was four feet when it was initially installed; however, after finish grading occurred, which raised the ground level on the Marshall property by four to six inches, the height of the fence measured approximately three feet six inches on the Marshall side. Chairman Long asked how they could be made responsible to trim to the ridgeline of the home. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the easiest way to do this would be to state that the foliage should be maintained at two feet above the applicant's pad level. Commissioner Drages thought that this would be difficult to determine. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 Page 5 of 6 0 1 Chairman Long stated that to define the view plane, a measuring instrument, such as a laser could be used. He asked the Commission if they felt this was necessary in order to restore the applicant's view. Commissioner Mueller stated that the foliage owner had done the trimming in accordance to the resolution. He further stated that the Commission should limit the decision to be based on where the ridgeline is presently. Chairman Long asked for a motion to modify the resolution by minute order. Commissioner Mueller moved to modify condition of Approval No. 2 of Resolution No. 98-04 to state that the height of the hedge be limited to the height of the highest ridgeline of the foliage owner's residence, by minute order. Commissioner Cordova seconded the motion. There being no objection, the motion was adopted (5-0). Project Coordinator Ursu stated for the record the deadlines for filing an appeal and the appeal fees. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the Draft Amendments to the current View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines would be placed on the Agenda for October, if the City Council reviewed them in September. Chairman Long suggested that the following items be placed on upcoming agendas; 1) discussion of the Maintenance Schedule; 2) discussion of requesting City Council approval to purchase measurement equipment in order to help Staff with accuracy during foliage and view analysis; 3) digital camera photograph presentations and discussion of using photographs to make View Restoration findings more objective by drawing lines on photographs to establish trimming levels. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Sweetnam moved to adjourn, seconded by Chairman Long. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to Thursday, October 7, 1999 at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 Page 6 of 6