|
|
PROJECT INFORAMTION CASE NUMBER: Appeal 05-014 of
Architectural Review Board 05-265
LOCATION: APPELLANT: Steven
H. Schwartz APPLICANT: Farhad
Ashofteh Property Owner: CASE PLANNER: Scott Albright, AICP, Associate Planner REQUEST: Appeal (05APP-014) of the Architectural Review Board approval of
ARB 05-265 CEQA STATUS: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15061 (b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in that the project involves the review of design-related issues associated with the proposed structure(s) in terms of general design architecture, proposed materials, colors, mechanical screening and/or landscape plans. Moreover, the project, including the property and any existing improvements, if any, have been reviewed, and for the purposes of CEQA, determined not to be a significant historic resource. The Landmarks Commission reviewed the demolition permit on December 12, 2005 and determined the existing structure(s) do not warrant nomination as a designated City Landmark or Structure of Merit. |
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
|
August 16, 2006 |
Determination Date |
|
X |
ARB application 05-265, approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below. |
|
X |
Denied (Appeal 05-014) |
|
|
Other |
|
EFFECTIVE
DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: |
August 16, 2006 |
|
EXPIRATION
DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: |
August 16, 2007 |
|
LENGTH OF ANY
POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: |
|
* Any request for an
extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division
prior to expiration of this permit.
Each and all of the
findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information
contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in
the record. The absence of any
particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular
finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS:
- The plan for the proposed building or structure is
expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the
image of
- The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value in that high quality material as detailed in the application submittal and as presented to the Architectural Review Board will be used.
- The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments on land in the general area in that the proposed two-story condominium building is compatible with the height, mass and scale of the neighboring multi-family, multi-level structures and provides adequate transition to the adjacent structures. The location of patios, balconies and landscaping provides adequate privacy from the adjacent properties and ensures light, air and open space opportunities. Furthermore, this project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing features, such as suitable landscaping, patio doors facing the street, balconies, and ample glazing to engage street activity.
- The proposed development conforms to the effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 9.32 – Architectural Review Board, and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. Specifically, the location and appearance of the buildings and structures comply with required findings set forth in Chapter 9.32, as documented by the Planning Commission, and the plan has demonstrated compliance with all applicable ordinances.
CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL:
1.
The plans shall be revised to show the sidewall
on the northeast corner of the property setback eight feet from the edge of the
2. This approval is for those plans dated July 17, 2006, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall revise the proposed landscape plan replacing the Carolina Laurel Cherry (Prunus Caroliniana) with a “compacta” variety along the northern property line.
4. This approval shall expire when the administrative or discretionary entitlements previously granted by an associated approval have lapsed. If no such permit has been issued, this approval shall expire one year from its effective date, unless appealed or otherwise implemented pursuant to applicable municipal regulations.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the plans comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Significant changes to a project’s design shall require review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. Minor changes may be approved administratively pursuant to all applicable guidelines.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance subject to staff approval. Modifications to the landscape plan that effect less than 150 square feet of area may be reviewed and approved by the Staff Liaison to the Board.
VOTE
Ayes: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Koning, O’Day,
Pugh
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal
under the City of
I hereby
certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of
_____________________________ _____________________________
Gwynne Pugh, Chairperson Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder
I
hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure
to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential
revocation of the permit approval.
|
Print Name and Title |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Signature |
|
|