The Principal Planner informed the Commission of the following issues:

Transcription

1 OFFICIAL CITY OF LOS ANGELES South Valley Area Planning Commission Minutes February 08, :30 PM Sherman Oaks Women s Club 4808 Kester Avenue Van Nuys, CA MINUTES OF THE SOUTH VALLEY AREA PLANNING COMMISSION HEREIN ARE REPORTED IN SUMMARY FORM. COMPLETE DETAILS RELATING TO EACH ITEM ARE CONTAINED IN THE HEARING TAPES FOR THIS MEETING. COPIES OF TAPES ARE AVAILABLE BY CONTACTING CENTRAL PUBLICATIONS, at (213) The meeting was called to order by the Commission President at 4:48 p.m. Commissioners present: Darren Martinez, Matt Epstein, Tony Lucente, Janel Huff; Commissioners absent: Tsilah Burman 1. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT - ITEMS OF INTEREST The Principal Planner informed the Commission of the following issues: A. There are 14 Targeted Neighborhood Initiative(TNI) areas in the City, with two in the South Valley. One of the South Valley TNI s is an expansion in the Van Nuys area and another a portion of the Valley Glen area. Maps of the two areas will be provided at the next meeting. Planning staff will be involved in development of expenditure plans for funds allocated at $1 million in each area for the next three to four years. B. Distributed copies of the Mulholland Design Review Board Agendas to show the caseload and types of cases heard. C. Distributed information regarding Mayor Riordan s Los Angeles Neighborhood Convention 2001 at Mount Saint Mary s, on February 24, D. Jillian s has withdrawn its project from the Promenade in Woodland Hills. 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Advance Calendar The March 22, 2001 meeting date has no cases scheduled at this time.

2 B. Commission Requests There were no requests. C. Minutes of January 25, 2001 Approved by consent. 3. APCSV (ZC) and APCSV (BL) A ZONE CHANGE from RA-1 to (T)R1-1 pursuant to Section I of the Los Angeles Municipal Code AND REMOVAL of a 25-foot Building Line pursuant to Section R of the Los Angeles Municipal Code at 5854 Tampa Avenue for construction of an additional single family dwelling. Staff recommended approval. The Deputy Advisory Agency gave the description, history and background of the case. There were no speakers on the case. The motion was made to follow the staff recommendation and approve the Zone Change and the removal of the Building Line. MOTION: Martinez moved; Lucente seconded 4. P.M.L.A A1 AN APPEAL of the Deputy Advisory Agency s modification of Condition No. 16d which restricted structures to a maximum of 24-feet, but now provides for a maximum height of 30 feet.

3 Appellants request reinstatement of the 24-foot height limit. The Deputy Advisory Agency gave the description, history and background of the case. The Applicant s representative spoke on the following issues: limited roof area for equipment; peak roof is the only issue; the distance from the subject structures to the Appellant s property. The Appellant raised the following issues: communications with the developer; notice of the project; misleading changes by the developer; privacy and visual impacts and landscaping mitigation; compliance by the developer; review of the plans. The Commission clarified with the speakers that there was no objection to the project in its entirety but that only mitigation measures were being sought. The Commission President then continued the case to the end of the meeting, instructing the Appellants and Applicant to discuss the matter in private in the interim to try to reach a resolution. The President then called Item No. 5. on the Agenda. 5. P.M.L.A A1 AN APPEAL of the Deputy Advisory Agency s entire Determination creating three (3) parcels. The Deputy Advisory Agency gave the description, history and background of the case; referred to an exhibit submitted at the meeting by a speaker opposed to the Appeal and discussed the issues raised there; described her site visit and observations; stated that three lots had been approved rather than the four requested by the Applicant. The City Attorney read the Code requirements for denial on Parcel Maps and stated that oak trees and CEQA are issues. The Commission discussed several issues with the Planning staff including: the use of the adjoining properties; project across the street and the previously existing structure on the lot. The Applicant s representative spoke on several issues including the following: compatibility; traffic

4 impacts; denial requirements. The Commission then discussed the following issues with the Applicant and the Applicant s representative: FAR requirements and their applicability; Building and Safety Plan Check; State MAP Act applicability; comparisons with neighboring properties; lot sizes. The Appellant then addressed the issues raised and also including the following: house size; future development; trees; golf course uses; zoning; safety. A representative of City Council District No. 11 stated that the Office was in support of the Planning Department s recommendation. Speakers in support of the Appeal raised additional issues including: location of the property in the correct tract; setting precedents to increase density; water runoff; sub-averaging of lots; Findings; two lots being preferable; oak trees. Speakers opposed to the Appeal also addressed the issues and stated that the recommended Conditions would adequately mitigate them. During deliberation the Commission discussed the issues including the following: oak tree preservation; comparable structures; lot size; topography; number of lots; runoff and drainage; traffic safety; petitions by neighbors supporting the Appeal. The motion was made to grant the Appeal in part, reduce the number of approved lots from three to two, and follow all the other Deputy Advisory Agency s recommendations. There was discussion to clarify and modify the necessary Findings. MOTION: Epstein moved; Huff seconded The Commission President called a recess at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:40 p.m. The President re-opened Item No. 4 on the Agenda which had been continued from earlier in the meeting. 4. P.M.L.A A1 AN APPEAL of the Deputy Advisory Agency s modification of Condition No. 16d which

5 restricted structures to a maximum of 24-feet, but now provides for a maximum height of 30 feet. Appellants request reinstatement of the 24-foot height limit. The Applicant and Appellants spoke on the agreement that had been reached for landscaping mitigation measures to address the Appellants concerns. The Deputy Advisory Agency clarified the modifications to the Conditions. The motion was made to deny the Appeal and follow the Planning Department s recommendations with the modified Conditions. MOTION: Martinez moved; Lucente seconded 6. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There was no public comment. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49p.m. ATTEST: Darren Martinez, President Greg Bartz, Commission Executive Assistant South Valley Area Planning Commission