Loading...
VRC MINS 20000706 • • APPROVED AUG 3, 2000 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 6, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alberio at 7:06 p.m. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chairman Alberio. Present: Commissioners Dyda, Franklin, Iseda, Monks, Simmons, Vice Chairman Slayden, and Chairman Alberio. Commissioner Weber arrived at 7:10 P.M. Absent: Commissioner Drages was excused. Also present were Project Coordinator E. Ursu, and Recording Secretary R. Ursu. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dyda moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Monks. There being no objection, the Agenda was approved. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator E. Ursu discussed and distributed the updated View Application Status Log. The Commission discussed the information presented in the table on the first page of the Updated View Application Status Log. Chairman Alberio requested that a column be added to the status log table to distinguish the number of view applications that have had successful pre-application meetings from applications that have been heard by the commission or have otherwise been resolved. Project Coordinator E. Ursu explained that there is one Pre-application meeting scheduled in July and circulated a Commissioner sign-up sheet for the meeting. Commissioner Franklin signed-up to serve at the pre-application meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2000 Commissioner Weber moved to approve the Minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Dyda, (8-0-1). • 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2000 Commissioner Dyda moved to approve the Minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Iseda, (8-0-1). CONTINUED BUSINESS: NO ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 59: Mr. and Mrs. Stephano Finazzo, 2175 Rockinghorse Drive (EU). A roll call was taken to see which Commissioners who were present had visited the site. Commissioners Dyda, Iseda, Franklin, Simmons, and Vice Chairman Slayden had visited the site. Commissioners Monks and Weber were recused as they had not visited the site. Chairman Alberio recused himself as he lives within 300 feet of the subject property. Vice Chairman Slayden moved to open the public hearing. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Project Coordinator E. Ursu presented the Staff report. He explained the history of the case, discussing the applicant's request, the foliage owner's concerns, and Staffs recommendations as presented in the written Staff Report. He concluded by stating that Staff felt that there was enough evidence to support the five findings that are necessary to approve the case. In response to Commissioner Dyda's query, Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the photographs on page 4 of the Staff Report were taken from a standing position from the applicant's upper patio (just outside the dining room) and from the living room. Vice Chairman Slayden asked Staff if it is feasible to cut the lower portions of the foliage on the Ash tree to 25 feet above the base of the tree. Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that raising the base of the crown is an acceptable trimming practice. Commissioner Franklin asked for clarification as to whether Staff considers the vertical branches of the Ash tree a limb or trunk, and for definitions of each. Project Coordinator E. Ursu responded stating, since the Ash tree is multi-trunked with numerous limbs shooting up vertically, limb diameter is used to distinguish between portions of the tree to be removed and those to remain. Accordingly, Staff recommends removal of limbs, which are less than 8 and 12 inches in diameter, on the south and north side of the tree, respectively within the 16 to 25-foot window frame. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2000 Page 2 of 6 • Commissioner Franklin confirmed that it is Staffs recommendation that the view would be restored by creating a windowed view between 16 and 25 feet above grade. Stephano Finazzo (applicant), 2175 Rockinghorse Drive, stated that he tried to work out an agreement with Mr. Zimel, where they both agreed to trim the trees. He further stated that he paid $460.00 for the trimming. Lastly, he stated that during the final negotiations with the tree owner, the only thing specified was that the branches in question were to be trimmed at the foliage owner's expense, but Mr. Zimel would not consider this option. Robert Zimel (foliage owner), 2140 Toscanini Drive, stated that between 1978 to 1997, the applicant never requested any trimming or lacing of the Ash tree to create a view for him. However, there were two or three times when Mr. Finazzo called to complain about the leaves of the Ash tree falling into his pool and patio. Mr. Zimel continued by stating that Ash trees are deciduous and lose their leaves every winter. The applicant at this time, was informed that he could trim the tree branches back to the property line. This began in February, 1997 with a verbal conversation which was confirmed with a letter dated March 20, 1997 from the applicant, which referrenced RPV Ordinance 319. Mr. Zimel continued, the letter indicated that the applicant wanted to have the Ash tree removed. After the applicant submitted the application for View Restoration Permit No. 52, all three trees were trimmed and laced at the foliage owner's expense, which was $835.00. However, the trimming was not acceptable to the applicant. Subsequently, there was a pre-application meeting held where an agreement was reached. Staff then visited the site and marked the specific branches on the Ash tree to be cut, per the agreement. Mr. Zimel further stated, that in September, 1998, two quotes from tree service companies were submitted to Mr. Finazzo. The June 1998 agreement was returned to him on October 2, 1999, 16 months later. On October 24, 1999 the revised agreement was signed by all parties and in January, 2000 the work was completed. Early this year, Mr. Finazzo called to say that the view that was created was not satisfactory. Mr. Zimel expressed concern that there will not be adequate privacy if the Ash tree is trimmed. He concluded by stating that he agreed the view should be restored, however he felt that the applicant will not be satisfied until the Ash tree is removed. In his opinion, Staffs position that the applicant 's view is in the Northeast direction of the applicant's backyard was incorrect. Mr. Zimel thought that the applicant's have a due east view, of the LA harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge, and Long Beach City lights. Vice-Chairman Slayden asked Mr. Zimel to explain the purpose of the clause in his agreement, which would preclude the applicant from submitting a View Restoration Permit. Mr. Zimel responded, stating that he did not want to be concerned with the possibility of being subject to additional trimming required by the City if he worked out an agreement with the applicant. Therefore, he included a clause in the agreement precluding the applicant from filing a View Restoration Permit Application. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2000 Page 3 of 6 0 0 In rebuttal, Mr. Finazzo addressed the costs and nature of how the Zimel's trimmed the tree. Mr. Finazzo stated that the trimming was done in a manner to satisfy the Zimel's. Mr. Finazzo concluded by stating that he did not feel that the Ash tree created a privacy barrier for the foliage owners. Vice Chairman Slayden moved to close the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Franklin. Commissioner Dyda stated that since the Council is concerned about the cost of implementing the Ordinance, he thought that the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of the Resolution) should be modified. He suggested modifying Exhibit A, Sections 1, 2,and 3 in order to allow the foliage owner some discretion as to how the trimming is done, as long as the trimming is completed in such a manner as to not infringe the view frame as established by Staff. Commissioner Dyda stated that he would defer this until after hearing from the other Commissioners. Commissioners Iseda, Simmons, and Franklin stated that they supported Staffs recommendations. Vice Chairman Slayden asked Staff if an Arborist could look at the Ash tree and analyze the trimming required prior to obtaining the bids. Project coordinator E. Ursu stated that in a similar case (View Restoration Permit No. 50), the base of the crown of two Ash trees was trimmed raising the crown approximately 30 feet based on the City Arborist's recommendation which was to raise the crown of the trees, and those trees are still healthy. Commissioner Franklin suggested two changes to item 1 of the Conditions of Approval of VRC Resolution No. 2000-01. He suggested changing item 1 to read "raise the base of the crown" instead of "raise the crown", in order to clarify what is being referenced. He also wanted to clearly define what a branch is and what a trunk is. He suggested that this be done by Staff physically marking each in order to determine which vertical branches need to be removed. Commissioner Dyda distributed a prepared amendment that he proposed to Exhibit A. He proposed to add language to the first three conditions requiring the tree owner to trim the foliage to a level below Staffs recommended height that would allow anticipated growth of the foliage between trimmings to grow up to, but not exceed, Staffs recommended level. In addition, he wished to delete condition number 6 which gives either party the opportunity to have the Commission evaluate the adequacy of the trimming level and frequency at least one year after the initial trimming is preformed. He further stated that these changes would allow the foliage owner to gain more control of the trimming cycles, and save Staff time. Commissioner Dyda moved to amend Exhibit, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 as he had written and to delete paragraph 6 in it's entirety. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2000 Page 4 of 6 II Ili Vice Chairman Slayden stated that paragraph 6 is the obligation of ordinance, in that the foliage owner is responsible to maintain the foliage. Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the Guidelines require that no sooner than one year after the initial trimming is preformed that Staff evaluate the adequacy of the trimming level and schedule. He further stated that paragraph 6 was a standard condition of approval for the Commission. In addition, Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that legally Staff has to find that foliage in excess of 16 feet in height creates significant view impairment. Therefore, the Commission can not require a tree to be trimmed below 16 feet. He further stated, the words "anticipated growth" in the amendment would create an issue with the Macadamia Nut tree in that the tree is already being recommended to be trimmed to 16 feet in height, and the proposed language is essentially a requirement to trim to a level less than 16 feet. Commissioner Dyda stated that the wording in the amendment clearly states when the tree intrudes into the view frame. Vice Chairman Slayden and Commissioner Dyda agreed that the word "anticipated" should be removed from the amendment. Commissioner Franklin stated that he did not think the amendment was necessary since if the foliage owner chose to, he/she could have the trees trimmed to a lower height than required. The Commission and Staff discussed the merits of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Dyda called the motion to adopt his proposed amendment. The motion failed (1-4) with Commissioners Franklin, lseda, Simmons and Vice Chairman Slayden dissenting. Vice Chairman Slayden moved to adopt VRC Resolution No. 2000-01, amending Condition number 1 to state, "raise the base of the crown", seconded by Commissioner lseda, (5-0), with Commissioners Monks, Weber and Chairman Alberio not voting. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Alberio requested that each Commissioner receive a badge to wear on site visits. Chairman Alberio requested that Commissioners refer questions from the media involving cases pending enforcement action to the City Attorney. Commissioner Franklin requested that the Commission review the rules and procedures of the VRC, as stated in VRC Resolution No. 94-1. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2000 Page 5 of 6 110 0 An Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioner Franklin and Chairman Alberio was formed to review and propose changes to VRC Resolution No. 94-1. Commissioner Iseda requested that the Commissioners receive the Staff Reports at least three weeks prior to the meeting, since they are expected to visit the site. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated View Restoration Permit No. 87 will be placed on the August 3, 2000 Agenda. Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the Minutes of the December 2, 1999 meeting would by placed on the August 3, 2000 Agenda. Chairman Alberio requested that Staff organize a field trip for the Commissioners to see various types of foliage which are likely to be involved in future cases. ADJOURMENT: Commissioner Dyda moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chairman Slayden. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:40 P.M. to Thursday, August 3, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2000 Page 6 of 6