Loading...
VRC MINS 20010301 • Approved March 15, 2001 rl VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alberio at 7:04 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chairman Alberio. Present: Commissioners Drages, Franklin, Iseda, Franklin, Monks, Weber, Vice- Chairman Slayden, and Chairman Alberio. Absent: Commissioner Dyda was absent (excused). Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Jones, and Recording Secretary Yeaman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Alberio moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Franklin. There being no objection, the Agenda was approved (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS: Staff: None Commission: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2001 Commissioner Drages noted a typographical error on page 2 of the Minutes, changing the Arboretum in the third paragraph to Botanic Garden and in the Continued Business section item no. 2 changing Terrance to Terrace. Chairman Alberio moved to approve the Minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Drages. CONTINUED BUSINESS: NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 76: Mr. and Mrs. Peter LaBarbera, 6050 Ocean Terrace Drive. (TN) VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 Page 1 of 9 r ' 0 Project Coordinator Nelson stated that there was a request by the foliage owner to continue the item due to an illness in his family. The applicant had no objection to the continuance. Therefore, she requested that VRP No. 76 be continued to the public hearing on April 5, 2001 meeting. 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 81: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Shahnazarian, 6 Headland Drive. (TN,SJ) Project Coordinator Nelson stated that there was a request by the foliage owner to continue the item because they were unable to attend the March 1, 2001 meeting. Therefore, because the foliage owner was unable to attend the March 1, 2001 meeting and the applicant was unable to attend the April 5, 2001 meeting she requested the item be continued to the public hearing on March 15, 2001. Both the applicant and the foliage owner confirmed that they can make this date. Chairman Alberio stated that the City did everything properly in notifying the applicant and the foliage owner of this application and the notice was also published in the paper as required. Chairman Alberio also stated that he does not want to make a habit of continuing items due to the availability of the parties involved. Commissioner Franklin moved to approve the amended Staff recommendation to continue VRP No. 76 to the April 5, 2001 VRC hearing and VRP No. 81 to the March 15, 2001 VRC hearing, seconded by Commissioner Iseda, (7-0). 4. APPEAL CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO. 78: Mr. Paul Berglund, 6309 Via Ciega. Mr. Charles Rosenburg, 6305 Via Ciega. Mr. Edward Murphy, 6304 Via Ciega. (TN) A roll call was taken to see which Commissioners who were present had visited the site. Commissioners Drages, Franklin, Monks, Weber, Vice-Chairman Slayden, and Chairman Alberio had visited the site. Commissioner lseda was recused, as she had not visited the site. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the Staff report. Chairman Alberio stated that he has concerns regarding the Cities responsibilities to keep City trees from obstructing views. He also stated that he was concerned that the person adopting the tree is not aware of the liability. Commissioner Weber asked that if the trees are trimmed and the trimming is not satisfactory to the applicants do they have any recourse? Is there some regiment of trimming required by the individual who adopts the tree? Project Coordinator Nelson replied that if a decision was made that is not satisfactory to the applicants they can appeal that decision to the City Council. She also stated that in regards to the regiment issue the Commissioners could stipulate in their decision a trimming schedule. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 Page 2 of 9 r ` Commissioner Slayden asked if the person adopting the trees decided to revoke their adoption what would happen? He also asked if it was the Staffs recommendation that the Rosenburgs and Berglunds are not involved, and that the significant view impairment is from the Murphy residence? In response, Project Coordinator Nelson explained that if the parties adopting the trees decide to revoke their adoption then the Staff would go back to the original recommendation to remove the trees since they are not official city street trees. Project Coordinator Nelson also stated that the Staffs recommendation was that only Mr. Murphy has significant view impairment. Commissioner Franklin asked if the primary viewing area could be out doors? Project Coordinator Nelson responded, yes that the primary viewing area could be out doors. Chairman Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Monks. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Jo Ann Berglund (applicant), 6309 Via Ciega, as Paul Berglund passed out photo packets, Mrs. Berglund asked both Staff and the Commission to review the photos submitted. She stated that the first picture listed was from 1956. She goes over the pictures and points out over the years how the tree has intercepted her view. Four rooms in the house have views the master bedroom, living room, dining room, and the family room. She states that the neighbors around her have maintained their trees to prevent any view interception with the exception of the trees mentioned in this application. By 1999 the breakwater and the harbor view were completely obstructed. She states that her and her husband have always kept their trees cut so as not to impair anyone else's view. She requests that the trees not be destroyed, that she likes trees, and asks that the trees be trimmed so that she can have her view of the breakwater back. She states that raising the crown of pine tree in no way is going to restore her view. Topping the trees will restore her view. She states that the property owner have let her top the trees in the past. And that since the trees have been adopted they no longer allow her to top them. Commissioner Monks states to Mrs. Berglund that the adoption has not been formalized yet. He also clarified that only property owners who directly abut the trees are able to adopt them. Commissioner Franklin asks Project Coordinator Nelson if she agrees with the recommendation that the Berglunds and the Rosenberg view is not significantly impaired. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that she does agree with the recommendation. Paul Berglund (applicant), 6309 Via Ciega, states that he and his wife have lived at this property since 1979. He also states that they had a fantastic view. That view is now VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1,2001 Page 3 of 9 . 0 0 gone. He respectfully disagrees with his wife in regards to the fact that he wants the trees removed. He would like the trees removed and replaced with official city street trees. Carol Woods (applicant), 6305 Via Ciega, states that she is co-owner of the property with Charles Rosenberg. She states that they have spent thousands of dollars trimming trees on their property not for their view, but for the view of the people above them. She believes that in R.P.V. keeping your trees trimmed so they don't block views is what you do to be a good neighbor. She goes on to state that the trees are going to eventually ruin her beautiful view and that the view is what makes her property worth what it is. Edward Murphy (applicant), 6304 Via Ciega, states that he has lived at this residence for the past 22 years. Mr. Murphy in length discussed his previous personal experience on the View Restoration Commission and his opinion on the process. He goes on to state that it is ridiculous to cut the tree from the bottom. Doing this will only give him a view of Gaffey Street and he is entitled to a 180 degree horizon view. Mr. Murphy discussed his opinion and value of significance and he stated that the trees block 50% 90 degrees of his view. He states that he does not agree with the adoption portion of the process. He defies the decision and completely disagrees with Mrs. Berglund in the fact that she wants the trees trimmed. Chairman Alberio clarifies to Mr. Murphy that it is Staffs role to apply the black lettering of the code. The Commissions role is to verify that the Staff has done this correctly and either accept or change the decision that Staff has come to. Commissioner Drages asked Mr. Murphy if the crown is raised 25 feet instead of 20 feet and remove trees 2 & 3 will that give you enough of a view? In response Mr. Murphy stated that he does not want to bend down to have a view and that the angle of the tree is the problem. He wants a full view of Long Beach, Queen Mary, and the Anaheim Hills. He agrees that it will be an improvement but he would not be satisfied. In response to Commissioner Drages query, Project Coordinator Nelson stated that if you look on the photograph you can see the pole set-up next to a tree that was trimmed and you can clearly see the horizon line and anything above the range pole is sky. Commissioner Franklin asked Mr. Murphy since there are other trees (Jacaranda) in the area and if it is his intentions to go after the other trees? Mr. Murphy in response, said yes he is going to file the appropriate applications for those trees. Commissioner Franklin asked Mr. Murphy, since he was reluctant about Dr. Weber visiting his property at night because you could not see the view at night, if he seldom goes Out and looks at the view at night? VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1,2001 Page 4 of 9 I 0 In response Mr. Murphy stated that he does in the summer months. Commissioner Monks asked Mr. Murphy if he thought that the trees should be cut from the top rather than from the bottom? Would this help restore his view to his satisfaction? Mr. Murphy replied that the trees should be cut from the top significantly. And he agreed that doing so would be the next best thing to removing the trees. Commissioner Drages asked Mr. Murphy that if one of the trunks of the pine trees is removed and the crown brought up 25 feet and tree 2 & 3 be removed what would that do for your view? In response, Mr. Murphy stated that the width of the tree is a problem as well. He said that he was reluctant to say if that would help or not. Donald Wildasinn (foliage adopter), 6348 Via Colinita, presented and distributed photographs that he had taken. He stated that he had some concerns that some of the photos given to him by Staff were taken with a telephoto camera and make the tree look bigger than it is. He wanted the Commission to review the photos for this reason. After Commission reviewed the photos he goes on to say that he has one disagreement that he wants to discuss. He believes that 20 feet is excessive to restore Mr. Murphy's view. He states that the reason the tree looks so big is because there are several trees directly behind it in a line from West to East. So if you remove this tree there are still the trees behind it that will obstruct Mr. Murphy's view. He asks that the recommendation that the crown be raised 20 feet be reduced to 16 feet. He thinks that everyone is obsessed with the commercial, industrial, money making view that is out there in the harbor. He believes that his tree should have more of a right to live than for someone to have a view of man made structures. Chairman Alberio asks Mr. Wildasinn if he would like to adopt all three trees or just the one pine tree. He also asks him if he understands that adopting the trees is a legal agreement. Mr. Wildasinn in response said that he would be willing to adopt all three trees if Mr. Doner does not want to adopt trees 2 & 3. He also states that he understands that the adoption is a legal agreement. He goes on to state that the pine tree in front of his house was one of the main factors for him buying the property. He said that he had allowed Mr. Murphy to trim the tree years ago and he had the tree cut so dramatically it looked horrible and that is why he is reluctant to letting him trim it again. Vice-Chairman Slayden asks Mr. Wildasinn if he can see the pine tree from his house or just from the roadway? Mr. Wildasinn responds that he can see the tree somewhat from his living room at about a 45-degree angle. He says that the tree is part of his house. Commissioner Weber asks Mr. Wildasinn that besides just the tree being there, what other VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 Page 5 of 9 benefits does the tree provide you? Mr. Wildasinn responds, the tree is very unusual for the community and the tree provides aesthetic value to his home. In rebuttal, Mrs. Berglund states that there is a misunderstanding on the sixteen feet verses his ridgeline. Raising the crown sixteen will be higher than his ridgeline. She also states that there are many trees on Mr. Wildasinn's street and she just wants to be able to see the ships come through Angel's Gate again. In rebuttal, Mr. Berglund states that he can not see how the Commission would not remove the trees so that he can have his view restored. He doesn't think that leaving the trees is fair. In rebuttal, Mr. Murphy states there is some miscommunication in regards to the 16 foot section of the guidelines. He discusses his view and understanding of that section. Chairman Alberio moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice-Chairman Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Franklin asked Project Coordinator Nelson if the other party (Mr. Doner) who wants to adopt the trees were invited to tonight's meeting and was there a reason that they did not attend the meeting? In response Project Coordinator Nelson stated that they were sent a notice and she had not heard from Mr. Doner. The last that Staff had heard was that he was still interested in adopting trees number 2 and 3. Commissioner Drages stated that when she spoke to Mr. Doner he told her that he was going to take the trees out. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that Staff was not aware that the Mr. Doner intended on removing the trees. Commissioner Monks stated that when he spoke with Mr. Doner he told him that he planned to remove the dying tree and dramatically take down the other. Commissioner Weber suggests that the dying tree be removed and the second tree be trimmed and laced to open Mr. Murphy's view. He suggests that for the pine tree we raise the crown as Staff recommends and lace it. Commissioner Drages states that she agrees with Mr. Wildasinn that the two trees in back of the pine tree make it look bigger than it is. She recommends that trees number 2 and 3 be removed and tree number 1 (pine) the crown be raised 20 to 25 feet and that would restore Mr. Murphy's view. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1,2001 Page 6 of 9 Vice-Chairman Slayden states that he agrees with the original plan to remove all three trees. He states that the crown would need to be raised and he would like to add that the top brought down to restore the other applicant's view. He feels that there would be nothing left of the tree and thus it should be removed. He also states that he feels that the view Mr. Murphy is wanting restored is not a view that Mr. Murphy should be concerned about. He states that there are other trees in this view corridor and this tree is not going to solve the view problem. Commissioner Franklin states that he has mixed feelings about this application. He states that he feels that the Rosenburgs and the Berglunds do not have a case at all. He also states that Mr. Murphy is pushing it in terms that this is a significant view. He states that you have to go behind a sofa to look out a window to see this view and there was a deck built on the house, which he feels also, does not have a terribly important view. He also states that he does not agree with the idea of going after one tree then multiple others to restore this view. He states that he appreciates Mr. Wildasinn's willingness to accommodate the Commission. He goes on to state that he does not appreciate Mr. Murphy's attitude that it has to be his way or no way. He then states that he is inclined to go along with Staffs recommendation on the trees. Commissioner Monks states that he recommends that trees number 2 and 3 be removed and tree number 1 (pine) be trimmed from the top instead of the bottom. In doing this he states that it would restore both the Berglunds and Mr. Murphy's view and would be satisfactory to Mr. Wildasinn as well. Chairman Alberio states that he has problems with the adoption right now. He suggests that he would like to see the recommendation be to reject the adoption for right now and remove and replace with official city street trees then allow them to adopt the official city street trees. Project Coordinator Nelson clarifies that because the trees are not official city street trees the recommendation in the report is to remove and not replace. She also states that the trees are eligible for trimming. She then states that if official street trees were planted the City would incur the cost of maintenance for them. Vice-Chairman Slayden makes a motion to remove trees number 2 and 3 and reduce the crown (20 feet) from the top. In response to Commissioner Drages query, Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the tree is somewhere between 45 and 50 feet tall. Commissioner Weber asked if lowering the crown instead of raising the crown is going to help restore Mr. Murphy's view. In response, Project Coordinator Nelson stated that she did not think that it would help restore his view. She believes that his view is through the tree rather than over it. She also states that the arborist generally says that you don't want to remove more that a third VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 2001 Page 7 of 9 0 • of the crown. She thinks that bringing the crown down 20 feet is about 50% of the crown. The Commissioners and Project Coordinator Nelson review and discuss the pictures of the tree. Commissioner Monks asks Mr. Murphy to clarify if he would rather have the top of the tree brought down or the bottom of the tree brought up. In response, Mr. Murphy states he prefers taking it from the top down. Chairman Alberio asks Mrs. Berglund the same question. Her response was that it would be her preference to bring it from the top down and would go along with the one-third in crown reduction and lacing. She states that would help them significantly. The Commissioners discuss this option. Commissioner Franklin asks Mr. Wildasinn what he would prefer. Mr. Wildasinn responds, the attractiveness of the tree would be increased by trimming from the top. Chairman Alberio requests the motion on the floor be repeated back to him. Project Coordinator Nelson responds, the motion is that trees number 2 (fur) and 3 (ash) be removed and reduce the crown of tree number one (pine) by no more than one-third and lace. Vice-Chairman Slayden moved to approve the motion, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Motion carries (4-2-1) with Commissioner Iseda abstaining as she was recused. Project Coordinator Nelson states that there is a fifteen day appeal period and the appeal must be submitted in writing. She also states that there is a $900.00 appeal fee to appeal to City Council. NEW BUSINESS: NONE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Project Coordinator Nelson stated that she would change the recommendation to reflect the decision made tonight and present it for adoption at the next meeting. Commissioner Monks congratulated Steven on his performance at the pre-application meeting which he sat in on. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1,2001 Page 8 of 9 r . , a • • Project Coordinator Nelson states that Commissioner Dyda's memo will be on a future agenda. She is not sure which one yet, possibly in April. ADJOURNMENT: Vice-Chairman Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Weber. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:26 p.m. to March 15, 2001 at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1,2001 Page 9 of 9