Meeting 2 Presentation Slides

7/28/2019 Meeting 2 Presentation Slides

1/42


2/42

Tonights Agenda

CUP/Administrative Use Permits

Design Review for commercial buildings

Design Review for multi-family buildings


3/42

Administrative Use Permit Process

Discretionary permit for uses that are more

routine and attract few speakers

Mailed notice 500 feet offuture decision

Sign posted on-site

Neighbors can request notice of decision

for possible appeal Identical findings as for CUPs


4/42

CUP/AUP

Preserves public hearing for more

controversial uses

Director can kick up AUPs to a public

hearing for Code violations or ambiguous

permit history

Banquet halls and nightclubs always

require CUP, regardless of alcohol

License required in certain DSP districts


5/42

Design Review


6/42

Code Structure of Design

Review

Applicability Authority

Standards

Actions of the Board


7/42

Applicability

Applicable to new construction and most

building alterations

Not applicable to creative signs; detached

garages

Design review = DRB, Council, or HPC

Staff reviewed exemption Ability to kick-up from staff exemption to

Board review


8/42

Authority

Most zones DRB or staff reviewed

exemptions

Historic resources and historic districts

HPC

DSP and former redevelopment areas

City Council

Staff administrative review already exists

in DSP and redevelopment areas


9/42

How DRB works

Applications received and posted on-line

Sign posted on-site

Notice of hearing mailed to occupants andowners within 500, plus all HOAs

Staff report covers site planning, mass and

scale, and architectural design and details Consultant suggested streamlining report

to pare down Code analysis and repetition


10/42

How Admin Review would work

Applications posted on-line

Sign posted on-site

Notice of future decision mailed to abuttingproperties, plus all HOAs

Staff decision letter from Design Studio

Review required submittal materials


11/42

GRA Faade Grant Program

staff-level design review


12/42

462 W. Colorado


13/42

6912 San Fernando


14/42

6640-44 San Fernando


15/42

6635 San Fernando


16/42

700 Allen


17/42

722 Thompson


18/42

211 N. Brand


19/42

318 N. Brand


20/42

Redevelopment Areas

staff-level design review


21/42


22/42

431 W. Los Feliz


23/42

200 S. Louise


24/42

645 W. Broadway


25/42

DRB Cases

Commercial


26/42

2448 Honolulu Ave.

Type of Work: New Construction

No. of Speakers: 0

Board Decision: Same as staff


27/42

350 N Glendale Ave.


No. of Speakers: 1



28/42

1439 East Colorado Street

Type of Work: Addition and Remodeling

No. of Speakers: 0



29/42

1008 North Pacific Avenue (Pacific Food Mart)

Type of Work: Addition

No. of Speakers: 0



30/42

1133 S. Central Avenue

Type of Work: Faade Remodeling

No. of Speakers: 0



31/42

1200 East Colorado Street

Type of Work: Faade remodeling

No. of Speakers: 2/1

Board Decision: Stricter than staff

Very difficult preliminary review

Type of project staff kicks up to DRB


32/42

DRB Cases

Multi-Family Residential


33/42

460 W California St.


No. of Speakers:1



34/42

1232 N Pacific Ave.


No. of Speakers: 0



35/42

624 Geneva Street


No. of Speakers: 1



36/42

1116 E Harvard St.

Type of Work: Addition, Remodel

No. of Speakers: 0



37/42

214 E Garfield Ave.


No. of Speakers: 0



38/42

500 East Lexington Drive


No. of Speakers:3



39/42

1241 Boynton St.


No. of Speakers: 1



40/42

1181 Spazier Ave.


No. of Speakers: 1


Staff initially recommended

approval of a simpler design; Board

added conditions to make it more

consistent with look of existing

house


41/42

906 E Harvard St.


No. ofSpeakers: 0


DRB decision similar to staffs, but

board asked for additional refinement ofwindows and cladding materials


42/42

1062 Allen Ave.


No. of Speakers:0


DRB asked for changes to roof

forms, window pattern, and entry

Documents

Meeting 2 Presentation Slides