TO:
Design Review BoardFROM:
Brian Lynch, Associate PlannerSUBJECT:
1731 Centro West Street; File #702097Appeal of a Staff level decision approving the remodel and conversion of an existing duplex residence to a single family dwelling.
MEETING DATE:
August 15, 2002 REVIEWED BY: DMWAPPLICANT/OWNER:
Andrew and Ann SluckyAPPELLANT:
John and Ann Green McComish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PROJECT DATA
Address: 1731 Centro West Street
Assessor Parcel Number: 059-052-07
File Number: 702097
Lot Size: 4,368 square feet
Zoning: R-2 (two-family residential)
General Plan: H (high density residential)
Flood Zone: C
Date Complete: June 27, 2002
CEQA Exemption: June 27, 2002
Permit Streamlining
Act Deadline: NA
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).
HISTORY
On June 13, 2002, the applicant submitted a Staff Level Design Review application for the remodel and conversion of a duplex structure to a single-family dwelling on the property at 1731 Centro West Street. The remodel proposal includes the removal of the overhanging windows on the west (left) side of the structure, several new windows would be located throughout the residence, a new stairway, landing, and gabled entryway on the east side of the structure, and new stone pilasters in the front of the structure. There would be various interior improvements including the removal of a second unit on the lower level of the structure. The application was reviewed for completeness and the courtesy notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors.
A letter dated July 3, 2002 was submitted by the appellants, owner of the adjacent property at 1705 Centro West Street, regarding their concerns of the project. The appellants’ main concern was that the there would be new windows added to the west side of the structure which faces the appellants’ property. The appellants also requested more time to review the application, and time to discuss the project further with the applicant. Staff allowed the appellant to review the application for an additional four days past the standard review time. Staff approved the project on July 12, 2002.
REVIEW BY STAFF
Staff has reviewed the application very carefully because there has been a history of Code Enforcement issues on the subject property. The Building Official has noted that some of the existing improvements on the property have been done without the benefit of a building permit. This project would help resolve the Code Enforcement issues on the property.
The main residence is considered a non-conforming structure because it currently does not meet the required side yard setbacks on either sides of the property. The proposed design would actually reduce the non-conformity of the structure by removing the overhanging portion of the second level, on the west side of the residence. This would reduce the structure’s encroachment in the side yard by approximately three feet. The other exterior improvements are mainly cosmetic in nature, which Staff believes would be asset to the neighborhood.
In response to the letter of concern from the appellants dated July 3, 2002, Staff took a closer look at the potential impacts of this project on the appellants’ property. The appellants suggested that the new windows proposed for the west side of the structure would decrease privacy and add to light pollution. Upon visiting the site it became apparent that there is a change in elevation between the two properties that limits the visibility between the two homes. Adding to the inherent privacy between the homes is a row of trees and a solid wood fence. Staff concluded that the design changes would not compromise the privacy between homes, but would actually increase the privacy because the overhanging portion of the second level of the residence would be removed. When reviewing the project, Staff found no inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance, or Hillside Design Guidelines.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
The Appellant has cited one ground upon which the appeal is based (Exhibit #1):
Ground #1: The design changes to the existing structure would decrease privacy and increase light and noise between homes. To resolve these issues the following is proposed:
The windows on the northwest corner would be removed and a new window would be placed on the north wall around the corner (windows #1 & 2 as seen in appellants appeal package).
The two bathroom windows would have their area cut in half and only one would operate. The second would be fixed and the bathroom would have mechanical ventilation (windows #3 & 4).
The master bedroom window area would be cut in half and would be flush to the wall (window #5).
The stairway window would be eliminated and a shielded skylight would replace it (window#6).
Staff Response: Due to the existing site conditions, including the difference in elevation between properties and the location of the existing wood fence and trees, the proposed design would not appear have an adverse impact on the appellants’ property with respect to privacy, light, and noise. The applicant’s architect has stated that the proposed windows on the west side of the home would provide necessary light to the rooms on that side of the residence, and anything less would not be adequate. For these reasons, the above design alternatives do not appear to be necessary.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No additional public comment has been received regarding this project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board receive public testimony, and review this project with respect to Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review. If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the Guiding Principles, then it is recommended that the Board direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal.
EXHIBITS
Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials.
Application and supplemental materials dated June 13, 2002.
Letter from appellants dated July 3, 2002.
Plans prepared for the project.