çbyjr,ty Planning Commission Report of Beverly

Transcription

1 çbyjr,ty City Hills Planning Division 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA TEL. (310) FAX. (310) of Beverly Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Subject: 472 South Spalding Drive Request for a Central R-1 Permit to allow a first-story 60 square foot addition, a second-story 151 square foot addition to an existing two-story accessory structure, and to allow a detached second unit to be located above the ground floor. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission will also consider adoption of a Categorical Exemption for this project. Continued item from the January 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, it is recommended this item be continued to the February 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Project Applicant: Recommendation: Mitchell J. Dawson That the Planning Commission: 1. Continue the item to the scheduled February 23, 2017 meeting. REPORT SUMMARY The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 12, 2017 for a Central R-1 Permit to allow a detached second unit to be located above the ground floor at 472 South Spalding Drive. The Planning Commission received the staff report, heard public testimony and deliberated the merits of the project. At the conclusion of Commissioner deliberation, the Planning Commission continued the item to and recommended that the applicant modify the project to address concerns identified by the Planning Commission. These items included: protecting the privacy for directly adjacent neighbors, ensuring project completion occurs in a timely manner and incorporating additional landscaping into the proposal to ensure the project is consistent with maintaining the garden quality of the City. Since the January 12, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has met with City staff to discuss modifications to their proposal. The applicant is currently revising the project s plans and landscape plans and is requesting additional time to address the concerns raised by the Commission. Attached is the applicant s correspondence requesting the continuance to the February 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Staff contacted Murray Fischer, the adjacent neighbor s representative, and he confirmed his client has no issues with the requested continuance to February 23, Attachment(s): A. Applicant Correspondence Report Author and Contact information: Fernando Soils, Associate Planner (310) fsolisbeveriyhiiis.org

2 Planning Commission Report 472 S. Spalding Drive Page 2 of 2 NEXT STEPS It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to the scheduled February 23, 2017 meeting. Report Revie ed By: Masa Alkire, AICP, Principal Planner

3 Attachment A Applicant s request for continuance, dated Thursday, January 26, 2017 Planning Commission Report 472 S. Spalding Drive

4 Masa Alkire From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Thursday, January 26, :51 AM Masa Aikire; Fernando Soils Fwd: Request For Continuance To The 23rd Follow up Flagged Masa and Fernando This is to advise you that I Feb23. will be representing the applicant subject to the proposed and quite needed continuance until The time is needed to perfect the already commenced steps to comply as reflected in your meeting with the applicant team yesterday. Kindly confirm to Maddy, Israel and me. Sincerely, Mitch Original Message From: maddylasry <maddylasry@gmail.com> To: Mitchell Dawson <mdawsonlaw@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 25, :35 pm Subject: Re: Request For Continuance To The 23rd Hi gentlemen, Firstly thanks for your time during our meeting earlier today to clarify the commissioner s concerns, it is much appreciated. Per our discussion earlier, we would like to request a continuance to the 23rd of February. As you know we only received the list of concerns late last week, and are still waiting on some further clarifications that we discussed in our meeting today. We need some additional time to revise our plans, in particular to further develop our landscape plan (specifics of which we discussed today) as well as to figure out the best execution of the fence that will still abide by city/planning regulations. In addition, you also mentioned needing the revised plans in advance to allow processing on your end prior to the hearing as well. Given our limited time, this seems like the best option so as to insure the most productive execution of the revisions that have been requested. Please advise, and again thank you for your assistance. Warmly, Maddy Mitchell J. Dawson Dawson Them & Gole 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA Office 1

5 z WOD OeMeIUOSMepW ei!w!soed LO2O99OLC