considered today so it could be credit card by the commission that would be imposed by the variance. >> we talked earlier about live ability i would find it difficult to put might have in the situation of the person who made the comments about the noise and smell it seems to be the visual impact on the quality of our life your bedroom or living room or all of the above each time you look up to get a feeling of a street you don't want to look at exhaust equipment. so i suggest we have the department work with the reasonable solution to sun screening that don't add height and shadow but visually breaks

the idea of not having to look at this equipment. there are many ways >> with the attempt to try to deaden some of the noise. >> it would be visible as well as noise and potentially smell and create an updraft it is important. >> oh, yes back to staff. the ms. jackson the photo that shows the exhaust system that's currently sitting on the building that was installed without permits >> that's correct. >> so we don't know if this is legal; is that correct?

legal in terms of the height and the vertical whatever that is usually required for exhaust to urging to have to go back to the building department >> yes. and the heath department department. it was within the co- compliance thing >> today, you know, if there's an increased height requirement. >> the exhaust has to be 2 feet higher than the adjacent roof so if the height is not appropriate we're going to have to raids it and also the visual thing. i could propose a screen shaft to so when people look out they look at the shaft instead of the equipment itself but it has to

be approved by the variance because the equipment or the feature on the rear structure at that location it's as opposed to be there but with the shaft it would be approved or it will come back for that >> okay. thank you for that. >> i believe we do not have a motion at of yet that is. >> there has not been a motion by the commission yet. >> i mean, i'll make a motion to approve the project with conditions as presented by staff and also to encourage the zoning administrator to consider screening of the ventilation of

the equipment in his decision. >> second and a conspire moore. >> isn't the request for the screening the discretion of the commission and it would get handed in the inclusion of your motion. >> certainly you could require screening but it would be up to my decision to allow it though the variance process. >> i'll to modify the motion that we recommend to the zoning administration to consider that and have staff work with you and the lee and the architect to make that happen. >> conditional approval next 8 talks about the mechanical equipment it public utilities screened i don't know if you want to amend that. >> it's already been addressed and a if it's in there that's

fine. >> i'd also like to add the possibility of a different run for the you know the system that could take it to the adjacent building instead of this. it's done. are you planning on ruling on this today >> yeah. >> actually, i was going to take it under advisory at this point. generally supporting a variance in this location but you i'd like more information from the project sponsor as to compliance of this equipment that's proposed with the equipment and to be approved by the fire department and other departments. so to make a decision at this time, i'd like to get more

information from the project sponsor >> commissioners the conditions a really refers to the rooftop equipment i'm not sure that was for the rooftop skrooeven. >> its equipment screening. >> the equipment a rooftop mechanical equipment on the rooftop rear excuse me. >> so then the motion is simply to approve with conditions? >> yeah. screening and i think i mean, the zoning administrator will have to taking into consideration since it's part of our motion. trying to pull the mechanical

equipment over to the other building will have to be pulled and cross over >> it will be evaluated. >> it's not that far. >> i know first place - i'd rather have to crossed off than be in my bedroom window. >> i agree with you but that's not a great solution anyway. >> so i have a motion just simply to approve with the motions. so commissioners if there's nothing further to approve the project with conditions (calling names) so moved commissioners that

passing >> and close the matter to public hearing and close it with the decision letter that would think for the letter to the before t before t before the board of appeals. this is for case 2009 at 194 on weaning i didn't street >> good afternoon, commissioners. before you is a request for conditional use for the property at the 194 sweeney i didn't street. the new construction of the now a family dwelling. the conditional use is required because the wicket is less than 25 feet. the project is also considered a

dwelling unit merger and as a proposal to transfer one the dwellings locked on the basement level to the newly created lot. this can be administratively approved since it meets the 4 out of 5 finding. a receipt from the street saying that they would be implicated in a negative manner. the staff recommend it that the loss of dwigs definition would be a more consistent scaled lot in this it's current size and that will be a dwelling that has more bedrooms and the proposed single dwelling is demonstrating

sensitivity to the greater neighborhood >> thank you project sponsor. >> good afternoon planning commissioner. i'm a representative for the project sponsor. i'm here to project the proposal at the sweeney i didn't street a second lot from the corner of sweeney i didn't. we're planning to build a 3 story that's been petting put to waste for a very long time. the new building will enrich the neighborhood and improve the area as well as fill the empty

space on the lot. here's some photos - sorry - okay. all right. here we can see from the top that is the lot which say we tried to propose the new building on it and we're willing to determine 0 this existing garage to have an open space for the new building that is also providing mid block open space.

and the new building we're going to be 3 story and on the top floor we're willing to set that back to 15 feet to meet with the planning code and as well as the back wall will sit back to match with the existing building. we also the existing 194 swen i didn't on that's showing is two family joining units and we're asking excuse me. we're willing to remove one unit to the new believe proposed to return the house to its one district. so the new building but also

bring in code to the aesthetic to improve the community. this will you think, if any, the 194 at the corner of the house to the community and compliment the character of the neighborhood has a whole. there's some pictures we can see. this is the existing 194 and on the record it is showing as 196 so we're going to take out one unit from the two family joining unit and going to propose new believe at the lot to continue the structural. that's the end of my conversation and thanks for your

time >> thank you. is there any pun comment on this item? >> i'm phillip i'm a family member of the property owner. mike khan. i'm here to read a prepared statement by the owner. good afternoon commissioners, i have lived in for the last 28 years my kids grew up here. however, housing in this city is unaffordable for most people starting out in life. my kids can either move out of the city or we must have more

space. i was trig to keep this tight committed family together and we will build a house next to hour house. we have long been planning this project for over 5 years because we have encountered numerous obstacles and delays but we've worked closely with the planning department to come up with a good design that will fit into our neighborhood while at the same time meeting the neighborhoods concerns. beef worked hard for the full support of the department. we request approval of this project so my kids can stay in

the city that we love so much. we want to continue to be good citizens like we have long been for the last 28 years. thank you very much >> thank you. any further public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners how are you. i actually live across the street are from where they're proposing the lot. i think it's a fantastic idea. sometimes, i see people sleeping inside the lots and i'm concerned i have kids. i want to support them a little bit more and i'm glad this is going to try to get your approval to make this thing happen. yeah. >> thank you. any further public comment.

oak seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> i have a couple of questions i think generally, the idea is very interesting we're a obviously having a conformity in the lot but i'm interested in asking you questions and therefore there is a meagerlyer more and more for the first building required in order for the second one to be justified. there are no drawings given to us to let us evaluate them for the modifications to the basement but there's no future illegal use of the units for this thing. in a sense for as much as i support the intent it's not complete enough for me to vote on the motion in front of me

>> to answer that i mean, i suppose i can say we'll insure that merger will be dealt with. i do said your concern we'll add those to the motion >> what modifications will that unit have to undergo to get the merger have a full kitchen or other things that could apply there is a reserve possible. >> perhaps the architect can discuss the actual changes but in terms of how we ref review that and to prevent any future conversion for an illegal unit we have an assurance that

there's an internal stair or no external access to the street. >> i appreciate your distributing e describing it pro and con is a difficult one. i have to see the drawings before i fully step in and vote for this because we do this for everybody else. this creates for the first family a better living situation than what they're currently experienced. >> does the architect have a response? >> so we also have provided the internal access to the ground floor. so i don't know what else you

know we can - >> that's the proposed bill. >> that's the access from the - >> but do you have drawings of the building that exists today. >> we're not - the existing building we're not doing any construction on it we're just redoing the kitching on the ground floor. >> those are materially access to the ground floor. >> maybe staff could clarify? >> there was a building application that was noticed to all building opulence that described to include a roof desk for the existing lot and nobody filed a discretionary review. we - section 375 said if i meet

those thresholds you could be prfld >> that doesn't mean the drawings and a i didn't include the drawings that was a different project it was a for a conditional use to move that and a neighbor didn't file a discretionary review and if you approve the discretionary review we'll move this next door. >> i mean, if you feel more comfortable we'll get the drawings to you. >> those are the drawings but. >> i understand what commissioner moore is getting at the desire to see what's happening the remove of kitchen but that's no within our

jurisdiction right now it's not before us. >> we decided we made the decision it met the administration approval so it's not part of your necessary finding. >> it's hairsplitting because obviously of new construction involving the merger it's in a gray zone which we rarely never have and including some how it's tied by an umbilical code. it's a curious it on my part >> okay commissioner. >> i think i understand it. what we're saying is staff has administratively prfld the merger on the other building. they met all the criteria on the 4 of the 5 and that's been

approved but not done >> well commissioners that building permit i've been issued because they don't want to lose the dwelling and so their holding it in awe benefits but i'll move this forward as long as we have the restrictions and the floors that is a any exterior exist has to be closed off. the bathroom we try to go with a half bathed and, of course, the kitchen is removed so making sure we don't end up 20 with three or four dwelling units instead of 2. the present project it seems to be adequate even though the space of 23 feet is small.

and on this one i expect the plans we see we're going to end up with. i noticed the exit on the new floors obviously no kitchen and a game room i'm not sure what that is it's a family room it's in an unusual position where you go to the two bedrooms. it's an enlarged foyer. so i want to make sure what we see is what we get otherwise the design is okay. and the idea to have two separate homes there are two front doors make sense to me >> yes. to staff. good to see you back at the

commissioner >> thanks pleasure. >> in terms of approvals if we go ahead and approval the project with whatever conditions there are. the project as it moves through building and whatnot the internal floor plan can still change >> yes. >> it doesn't have to come back to us. >> i would say - >> yeah. >> the new believe. >> i have to say that i think the floor plan it's terrible. i don't know if the designer understands but the 3 bathrooms don't line up with each other and there's no plumbing so how do you run the planning up to the third floor but it's

obviously going to cost a lot of money if there's not tweaks made to the floor plan but i don't want it come back here. so if that's okay. we're fine >> yeah. >> okay. fine and a commissioners and i just wanted to say one thing that's not clear here is they could still subdivide the lot without removing the unit in the first block they're not necessarily related. they could choice to they choose this approach but they don't necessarily need to make a merger to allocate 3 unit next door and it's an rh one

district. but this is a question for scott >> it's a separate lot. >> yes. >> but i think there's an argument you can't subdivide it because there's one lot and you have the two units. >> okay - >> but the larger point those are two separate lots there's no connection between the two buildings. >> she can't yes, but - and it was approved by staff administratively you're looking at a new anchor on describe standard lot. >> commissioner. >> so if i'm clear if we approve this it's contingent upon the removal of existing building otherwise they don't get it and that's okay with me and a commissioner moore.

>> i want to repeat that point i'm considering approving it to building on a smaller lot in exchange for a substandard two yunt unit arrangement who wants to be next to each other on a substandard now lot i'm t-bone that but the two buildings goes back to rh one. >> to address your concern we can add that condition to basically is a in the conditions of approval that the two unit building will be converted to one building bow to america lists it we can conclude that in the condition. >> putting other people on notice this is not some kind of

deal. >> in the future it would be hard to track. >> only a single-family building would be approved. >> i'm going to add another condition that there are n s rs on both lots. >> second. >> second. >> i'm fine with that. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to approve it to amend to include that the n s r be record on both lots. >> yes. the existing.

>> one lot is being subdivided into two lots. >> there's a motion and a second (calling names) so moved 3, 4, 5 that passes unanimously and places you on item on columbus avenue. >> good afternoon kate planning staff. you have before you a conditional request to establish a 25 hundred square feet business restaurants. previously they were solely a bar use but to convert it within the broadway commercial district. costa mesa a has been operating