C. Minutes of October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000 were approved by consent.

Transcription

1 OFFICIAL CITY OF LOS ANGELES Central Area Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, November 14, :30 PM Figueroa Plaza - Room N. Figueroa Street Los Angeles California MINUTES OF THE CENTRAL 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 Ron Hartwig, President at 4:37 p.m. Commissioners present: Beverly Ziegler, James Harris and Scott Shu. Absent: George Luk. 1. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT - ITEMS OF INTEREST 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Advance Calendar B. Commission Request C. Minutes of October 10, 2000 and October 24, 2000 were approved by consent. 3. ZA (YV)-A1 APPEAL requested by Frances Lucille Saunders from the entire determination of an Associate Zoning Administrator s denial, pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.28, of an adjustment from the requirements of Section C2 and C3 to permit a 0-foot side yard in lieu of the required 5 feet and a 0-foot rear yard in lieu of the required 15 feet in conjunction with the conversion of a garage into an additional dwelling in the (Q) R3-1XL Zone. Staff recommends denial of the appeal. Staff conducted an overview of the project, stating the project was unique due to the code change. The applicant originally filed for a yard variance under the old charter, which would require different findings and found under a different section of the code. At the hearing held by the AZA there were unresolved issues by the applicant. Staff allowed the applicant to provide the additional

2 Minutes of Central Area Planning Commission 2 November 14, 2000 information, in the interim the new charter became effective and the originally request for a yard variance was no longer valid it now becomes a Zoning Administrators Adjustment, which has different findings. The request was for an existing former garage that was turned into a residential dwelling The applicant had permits for a laundry room, then converted the remainder into a dwelling without a permit. The residential dwelling now has to observe the required yardage. Several problems were created by the conversion, including parking requirements. Staff testified the findings could not be made and he was concerned about setting a precedent. The Applicant s Representative testified the appeal was based on the old code, there was a legal and factual error and that Association Zoning Administrator abused his digression. The representative testified there was no detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Several spoke in favor of the appeal, stating the cottage was nicely built and the owner is active in the community and thought she was doing things legal. Deliberation: The Commission questioned staff regarding the findings, if the findings could be made under the old charter. Staff testified the findings would be more difficult to make. The reason for he front yard variance is to ensure an emergency access. Commissioner Hartwig suggests to deny the appeal and have the applicant go through the correct procedures to legalize the dwelling. Commissioner Ziegler made a motion to Deny the Appeal. Motion: Ziegler moved, Harris seconded Vote: 4-0

3 Minutes of Central Area Planning Commission 3 November 14, ZA (F) APPEAL requested by Dan Rich of conditions, parts of elements of an Associate Zoning Administrator s approval, pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section X,7, to permit the construction of a fence 5 feet in height in the front yard in lieu of the 3 feet 6 inches otherwise permitted in the R2 Zone pursuant to Section C,1(g) of the Municipal Code. Staff recommends denial of the appeal. Staff conducted an overview of the project. The applicant was proposing a 6 foot fence and a 2 foot setback. Staff stated there were no residential properties in the immediate vicinity with an 8 foot fence. The applicant s reason for the request was due to a high school across the street. Staff stated during his investigation there were no records of police calls, no instance of bodily harm and there was minor graffiti. The Applicant testified his tenants have had unwelcome experiences with high school students and there is an economic hardship. The applicant stated he submitted his proposal to the neighborhood groups and they were in support. Deliberation: The Commission raised issues regarding the architectural design, the height of the fence and the height of the entire structure. Commissioner Hartwig made a motion to Grant the appeal and overturn the action of the Associate Zoning Administrator, Modify the Conditions and Modify the Findings. Motion: Hartwig moved, Harris seconded Vote: 4/0

4 Minutes of Central Area Planning Commission 4 November 14, ZA (CUZ)(YV)-A1 APPEALS requested by (A1) Michael Singh and (A2) Louis Tankus from the entire determination of an Associate Zoning Administrator s approval, pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section W,27, and Charter Section 562, for the remodeling and expansion of an existing one-story, 5,922 square foot, retail building into an approximately 10,630 square foot two story office/sound studio with specified deviations from the requirements of Section A,23(a)(b) of the Code, and pursuant to Charter Section 562 and Los Angeles Municipal Code Section B, approval of a variance from Section A,10 of the Code to exceed the 25 and 33-foot transitional height limitation on a portion of the building. Staff recommends denial of the appeals. Staff conducted overview of the project. The transit height ordinance would allow, the applicant a 11 % increase in the size of the building and a loading zone in The rear of the property a minimum of 400 square feet. Appellants testified they would loose their quiet enjoyment due to the business being open for 24 hours. The appellants did not want the business to be open after 11 p.m.. Concerns were of traffic, noise from the tenants and guest that would visit the property. Applicant s representative testified the building would be sound proof, there are no parking issues, the doors to the property will be key coded for employees only. He also testified there will be no negative impact on the neighbors. The representative requested changes to the following conditions that would be imposed, conditions 15, 11 and 21. The Council representative supports the project. Several testified against the project stating, the applicant is attempting to build a mega recording studio not for his personal use as indicated. Concerns were regarding the caliber of people that would visit the property, loud radios, car horns and the location of the loading zone. Several testified in support of the project stating, there will be no loitering, the project is well designed and compatible to the area.

5 Minutes of Central Area Planning Commission 5 November 14, 2000 Deliberation: The Commission deliberated and made the following motion: Deny the appeals Modify conditions #11 and 13, eliminate #15 and impose an additional condition #21. Moved: Hartwig moved, Suh seconded Vote: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - No speakers. There being no further business to come before the Central Area Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m. ATTEST: M.A. Ron Hartwig, President Carla Crayton, Commission Executive Assistant Central Area Planning Commission