HomeMy WebLinkAbout1501 Cypress Avenue - Staff Reportv�� Item� #11�26/84
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO
ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A LOT ZONED
R-1 AT 1501 CYPRESS AVENUE
Eugene and Evelyn Condon are requesting two variances so that they can
rebuild their existing garage in its present location on site at 1501
Cypress Avenue. The variances are for side yard setback, 0' proposed
(3' minimum required) and side setback from Cypress Avenue,
4' proposed, 7'-6" required, for this corner lot (Code Sections
25.70.030 and 25.62.050). The proposed 20' X 22' new structure is the
same size and will be placed at the same location as the existing
structure. The new garage is required because the existing garage has
sustained structural damage from tree roots, has no foundation and has
dry rot and termite damage. The proposed structure will meet
accessory code standards for building separation, maximum height and
plate line. Because of the configuration of the lot, the structure
extends beyond the rear 30� of the lot.
City staff have reviewed the request. The Fire Chief (October 30,
1984 memo) and the Chief Building Inspector (October 29, 1984 memo)
had no comments but noted that a one hour fire resistive wall would be
required on property line. The City Engineer (October 29, 1984 memo)
had no comments .
The applicant submitted a letter (October 22, 1984) in support of her
request. In it she states that because of the shape of the lot and
placement of the house there is no other place on the lot for a
garage. The absence of a garage would affect the value of their
property because they would have no storage and work space. Allowing
the garage reconstruction will not affect the neighbors. Moreover it
will provide a safe, fire proof structure rather than the unsafe
existing building. The zoning district will not be affected since the
area will be suitable only for a garage with laundry facility as it is
now used.
To grant a variance the Planning Commission must find the following
apply to the property (Code Sec. 25.54.020):
a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or class of uses in the district,
so that a denial of the application would result in undue
property loss;
b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the property
involved;
c. that the granting of such variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements of other property
owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or
improvements; and
-2-
d. that the granting of such variance will not advPrsely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
In summary, this is an unusually shaped lot created when thz rear yard
was subdivided off many years ago. While creating a legal lot,
subdivision left the existing residential structure without any usable
rear yard (4'-6" to 0'). The triangular shape of the lot prevents the
location of the garage in the rear third of the lot, thus the variance
for rear yard setback. The rear wall of the garage structure was
placed at property line by the subdivision. Ovar the years a tree
planted too close to the garage has raised the slab, damaging the
structure. A two car parking area is required because there is not
room behind the requir�d side yard 7'-6" setback in which to park a
car. The proposal meets all other requirements of the accessory
structure ordinance. The encroachment into side and rear yard exceeds
those allowed for a minor modification, so that alternative for
processing was not available.
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the garage be built consistent with the plans submitted
to the Planning Department and date stamped October 23, 1984;
and
2. that the requirements of the Fire Chief's memo of October 30,
1984 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 29,
1984 be met.
������-���
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Eugene and Evelyn Condon
PROJECT APPLICATION ���"�" °� 1501 CYPRESS AVENUE
�t CEQA ASSESSMENT BURLINGAME project address
��^�'w��,��� project name - if any
Application received (10/23/84 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
i. APPLICANT Eugene C. or Evelyn J. Condon 344-8607
name telephone no.
1501 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Same (Bus.) 349-3212
contact person, if different telephone no.
+�aa�
>,ot-o
r r � O
r U
O cn i
.� •r O �F
3 .� � o
�
+� a� in
O �F �— �
�o.no
•r •r
cn o a� +�
•r Q •r Q
M r �
a a� v
v� � x
�c � +� a�
Z � O
�L��
m � .
a� a� � �
a��i��
t +� o 0
�- � � �o
c a� ra o
� •r L N •
I � L 1p
� t �
o n� +� -o
� c c �n
Q •r N (� N
� f� •r
i-> � •
W C � 'p U
0 0 � •� �
�--� U t0 N (/'I
N
�
_�
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Speci�.l Perr�it () Variance* (X ) Ccnc+or�inium Permit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION VARIANCE from side yard dlld S1Cl2 setback
requirements to allow the reconstruction of the two car garage
on this site. A 3' minimum side yard is required (0' is proposed);
a'-6 si e setback from Cypress Avenue is require 4'-0'
is proposed). The garage will replace the existing two car
�arage; there will be no change in dimensions. The garage will
maintain accessory code standards for building separation,
maximum heiqht and qlate line.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.70.030 )( 25.62.050 )
4. PROPERTY IDEMTIFICATION
( 028-301-010 )( 1 )( 3 )( Glenwood Park RSM 9/34 >
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( R-1 ) ( ±5,750 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Euqene or Evelyn Condon 1501 Cypress Avenue
land owner's name aBUY'� i ngame, �A 94010
Reouired Date received city zip code
(3r2�) (no) ( - ) Proof of ownershio
(��) (no) ( - ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existing single family dwelling with detached two car garage
Reo,uired Date received
(yes) (��) (10/23/84�
�YeS) ���) � �� )
iYeS ) ���) � �� )
iYe S ) ���) � " )
(other) ( " )
Site plan shov+ing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all structur�s and improvements;
paved on-site parkino; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by tyae of us�'on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
letter of Px�lanation
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PP,�IPOSAL (NEW GARAGE ONLY)
Proposed censi:ruction, 3elow qrade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
gross floor area First floor ( 44 0 SF) Third floor ( - SF)
Pro.ject Code
Pr000sal RPquirement
Front setback - -
Si de setback G. �-�" ��-6 �'
Side yard Q' 3'*
Rear yard 18 15 � *
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot coveraae 46.5% 40% ^1AX
F'uildina heic�ht 14' mdX. 14'-6" m X.
Plate line 10' max. 10' max.
Qn�•site pke.spaces 2 2
6
PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full tir�e employees on site
Part tir�e emoloyees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
IP! 2 YEARS IN 5 YEARS
� after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAfdD USES
Single family structures on all adjacent sites; this use
conforms to the General Plan.
Required
(3��s) (no)
(3�s) (no)
Date received
( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
( n/ a ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firr,is ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ( X) Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 ()
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ()
TOTAL FEES $ 65.�� RECEIPT N0. 55H4 Received by �q.M�onroe
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
i' '�/
Signature l • � � c ' � �� -,� � . c � � oate l ..1 _.3 C
-Tpplicant�
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on , 19_,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Cateqorically exempt: reference
Code Sec. 15302, Replacement of existing
structure.
--- — r i 1� C'� +l� g� �.��� 1`�) 1�-. ���
Sig ature of Processino Official itle Dai:e Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTIPJG Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Nega.ti�re Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to tha Council Chambers.
Executed at 3urlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P;o
19
JUD HI�.-�TT�-CITY CLERK, CITY ('r= oURLINGAh1E
�
�
STAFF REVI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 10/26/84� (.ves) (no)
Building Inspector ( �� ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( �� ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( _ ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIODI MEASURES
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
Mitigation Measures
0
Concerns
Do the plans comply with Fire Request comments from the Fire
and Building Code requirements? Marshal and Chief Building
Inspector.
Will the reconstruction of Request comments at the
this garage have any adverse pub1ic hearing; make
impacts on adjacent sites? determination.
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - categorically exempt.
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
�
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 10/23/84�
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes (no) Recommended date (��1:z6���1 )
Date staff report mailed to aoplicant (/i��� �cf) Date Commission hearing (/i/Z(, �[[)
Application approved (,� Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no)j �
Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication aporoved ( ) Denied )
�
� 1
�� {� .� ��i.r'C. � • � .
signed date
DATE: ��" 2� ' �`�
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
� �FIRE MARSHAL
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Y�i i l�s+cG � v �! �'t.�> /^�G+1�J 7Ht �{i Gs'! O� <c HGYJ - fOL7 J�sk isy
�� J
��-�,G .� IsO� �•�SJ ��-[.
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ft �� e�✓
at their //- � meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by //- /� - �Sl
Thank you.
Helen Towber
Planner
Si
att.
����, jV ��
o�� � o ����
����
`� � � � �30 1—�� S 0 �='P�'� r � � ��-�:ry - � _ � �i�S
�-,�
NC� ��e��S I �� c 1-�
p�,�,� �S �r��as e� 0
1-�� � S (Y1V S� c N�LJ��
(�N e- C�) c'�Uv� V�J r.��
S E�v.�r�
(1�
�
(Yi - �v`�eJS
g . r �.
DATE : �� ' 2 � ' �5�
MEMO T0: CI Y ENGINEER
� HIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
S U BJ EC T: l��i. �cc �v .c,l/v� r-�c�,t ri.r�7'S c,� o� cc "�i - c� ��-ss...iy
J
SJ
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for i9-�� e�✓
at their //- Z� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by �/- /� • ��
Thank you.
�a " a �` ��
� /�/I'1 N /r�� /vG siG/ i1M Lw/
i �
D .
.
� � �ot � / ♦..�� �fJ! d/ tf /o.ti �
Helen Towber �° � �
Planner
S� tSh o u G�//! � /d� ��i �r� b L� �odE��i�f
att. /� / �� �
' Q � ' ' I.OrP 9�,,,� E ,� �
lJa �/�rs � v� s ll .� Lve rs G/o� �� ! G�f'J
,�../ � ,/ � /
/fi � n 3 �'E�/ %a /�rlo ,de�c� �1 /� �o � /c' �i�2 E /QE�ks i��.��,
/
.
. -
DATE : �� ' 2 � ' ��
MEMO T0: � CITY ENGINEER �-k-�.- f���.a ,:� L3/��j %�,�'�•)
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
S UBJ EC T: i��i. a.,..cc �v ..��izv v-�u�J 7�i+: �75 c� o� �c "dyi - coy,�' J
4 u�.-a-s, .c f /.TO/ �•�es,t �'r�.�..�
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for � G� ��t/
at their //- Z� meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by //- /5� - ��
Thank you.
Helen Towber
Planner
,,
%�� :-' ��1E�7'<9��1�' ���
���; ;��� ��/E��-'�%t�
(����
s/
att.
�
�%�i/.�i"�/�il� �'r'/ � /✓ ``S ����'���'��"
. � �
, ;,
i�i�� '�;1'" v �� �'�
t �
Q,, . L��,�.����
�
�
Applicant's statement from Project Application: ��' �
"Due to existing structural deterioration from termites/dry rot/
tree root uplifting of existing foundation, entire building
was unsafe and required replacement."
� �--`/ .� ���:�-�r�, ����U��
� X
G' �
✓l/r� Gr/[� �!�' � � L!��1s�
�
zz-��
�i�C:tlV�i�
0 C T 2 3 1984
CI �OfN � IN�GATME
��L�GU� _.�t�
/
.-r.r� �ii^�'-C� ..�� i�iv�-C r�t O `
�� �c��� ��'2��j �
�a%1.fi�/ • � /�� ���'`��� e� � v
.� ��-
� ' ' ' ,�1 �-( �iz �'-1�I/L ��-0`� �� �� ,
�,�-��� �� �- .�-�-�
, � �� �%��
-�1t� �� �
�� ��� ��
�� ��. ���� _�
��' % � ^ . � ��� ���
� ��� �
. ���� .-��,�.�- ��-
�� � �...�1 ,,r�
� /�/� J
���� ,� ,�"� !1 �'��
. ,��. �� G��
�� � � ���
'n� ��� �
����,� � � �
�� �� ,
� �..- ��vG� I (/ lL2,l��� �"`"L u��✓�f
`c,� � � � 2/
G/j� � � Ck�� � �
i�L� ` �� ����� ' p �z�
� � G�.
' � L��
� ,�. -�� .�-�����->
C� ��
� ��� .
� �
����
�
_' �^ .� � � \`� �
� �: �� � � .� ,� � . �. � r�
. aE � ���'� '
� � '/
�- _ • �I� . ,,,�'�
.�,► , � «� �, � � �I v r�✓� �
♦, . . , . � P � . '��
�� �,�' r �- `,.� : - � � � .�'�`' � '
�' � . ; � . �� ' �
a . � ;� �� . �
�� . ���, .�5 � • .
� �� ��� � `�
� ��� � �
;^
�' �.+�►,.... �'� � � �� , . ,�� '� �� �� � � : �'��, � ; � . � ,
' � � � �, .f , ;;� � �
�� C � � �..'�1,�� � � � i�
� • . ^�_ _� .� O �r
�`� � , � _� 'e�''`�� . ,_ ,�+;r,4 , vl� . �� t
.,�11E. �� �` ��� '� �{'� • � �
�',�; ` :, ' �'� ,��'� °:�,�. �, .f � 6.�.
� � �. �� ` f_ , � � z'+, � y= .,,. . . ••„
wr• ' ,#'A # �� ''ti, ti ��p� `•.
,�- y ' � . ' � ,� ,�� �t4yr ;�ra� _ .
t�>> ._ , , �+• i '�� .� �
� � . +�� � .. : -�s.- i ''�'� K •�' - a , ■
.� � • `' �����, ,� � . 'L, �'!^ • � "�: ,' �+( • �
. 1° . �..���`(o � M ...Y � Ir�, �K. � '� � � ��'.� �.�� .
` 4�� � � � * ' • .. .a . • •s�• � 4��.�
��
, -�. a-""'*'�` i � � r • � ' � w� , . -'� � � ,
� "� ��- � � �� � a� r� , ���y+ �" `y ^ �
I_ Q T �.� r' �. ..;aG.'_r'F � . �
— ' `. ;.` , �,~��} �(/ CP �+ ' ...�,�,, . ' . �
�,,� � � � � � � ,� - ' �'
�i '•s "' ' ;-;;; . .� � , �� s�,� ,�''�' �� . J
��.t� .. i. �, � � � . {�� �
, �t ��. � `� � ' " ,�;. . , " .,..
,� , � � � •� �"+�
�!/`� , � �� ^ '�`� � ,. ' . ,f
-� r �
,
' ..� �� ''� � '� �'� �y ��4 �;.'�i�,�j ' ' X'�r r'�j ��r►�
� �'� `����� . .� .. . � , �.iw. ti � �'s
'Q`� � .f, +; \ �
s ,� l /� ' �
� . � ,.� � 17 r •� � ` � � rc. � � � �• � • �
.�. �� �� �' 3 � ' / . ���� . ' � •�, . a , y, '' � t . a
• - -�� ++� 4 � ,� � + • :� � j r , af � •
���� �•� s :� �� � `� #� s •� � . � � �' .
� � � � � � � � 4 �� �� I� � �' �'.
'' �_ __ � ..� '� +lji.� :�� � .t�` � i "` :,.: ' �'eC'L, ,4 � �' _ �►
. .� � � , � �� :: ,w � �,' �;: . . � � �- ^!�,�•;,,�' _ E,�4 E
.t� �; �+ t , *
� � � - . �.� ^ � y, � �
�� �_� , � • �'�' ;±i4. , + �! '� ' " -i,
� ;� • �..�a1. , a� -. ..; � ��r � #t� ' �„'!k'�R!!�'; ,�` ,� •��
, � � �q�,.� ' ,+�_ �'�`
.. ` �` � , � ♦ - ;,� � ' "�= � ' `'r
�� �` � � � '`�:. , �� `"�r� `'- --- . "'� !'�,
� . a�' ` � f � x� ti- � ....
. . :.� � � �. `•
� . � �t ,� � , ��..
� . � � � � w'.�r: +1 ' _ �,. ��'Ir .
� , '���'� ,� ' � � Y
�_ �►'°"�,� _ � z � - �
.� � � � � � a 4 F �. . -� .
.��,� • • _,�� • �,��� � ' . ' `, i � �. �
� . +� � , '4 •`,� . • v
� -.�'• _ ' � � - � Mi ' �E � � `"'r' �' �
' � ' ,�r '�`�� ! j' �.4 � �d
,,� _ • _,.� �
,� � � tr *
� c
�� R ---s � Y , .. . . . 'µ '�r "�
� '�
�hr C�t�u uf �urli�t��tznF
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PF7IMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE
TEL� (415) 342-B931
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 26th day of November, 1984 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Qurlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to allow reconstruction of an existing two
car
1501 C
rage which does not meet side yard and side setback requirements at
ess Avenue; by Eugene and Evelyn Condon
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLAN�IER
PJovember 16, 1984
BURLINGAME PLANVING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 26, 1984
CALL TO ORDER
A regular
called to
P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
order by Chairman Graham on Monday, November 26, 1984 at 7:32
Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy,
Schwalm, Taylor
None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; City Attorney Jerome
F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the November 13, 1984 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE
AT 1501 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY EUGENE AND EVELYN CONDON
CP Monroe reviewed this request to rebuild the existing garage on this
site. Reference staff report, 11/26/84, Project Assessment and CEQA
Assessment received 10/23/84; letter from the applicant dated 10/22/84;
plans date-stamped 10/23/84; staff review: Fire Chief (10/30/84), Chief
Building Inspector (10/29/84), City Engineer (10/29/84); aerial
photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed 11/16/84. CP discussed details of
the request, staff review, appliant's letter, Planning staff comments.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mrs. Eugene
Condon was present. There were no comments for or against th�
application and the public hearing was closed.
C. Giomi moved for approval of these Variances for side yard an3 side
setback as conditioned by staff with exceptional circumstances as
outlined in the staff report and the applicant's letter: that such a
Variance being necessary for the preservation of a property right of the
owner because without these Variances there would be no garage and that
the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, rather, it would improve the public health, safety and welfare
in that it would be taking down a deteriorated structure, and that the
granting of such variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive
zoning plan of the City as it would remain an R-1 piece of property.
The conditions are: (1) that the garage be built consistent with the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
November 26, 1984
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 23,
1984; and, (2) that the requirements of the Fire Chief's memo of October
30, 1984 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 29, 1984 be
met. Motion seconded by C. Garcia; motion approved 7-0 roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY, FIVE UNIT CONDOMINIUM
AT 1114 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY CORNELIUS AND ELIZABETH BROSNAN
CP Monroe reviewed this request to build five condominium units on this
site. Reference staff report dated 11/26/84; project application and
CEQA Assessment received 9/12/84; staff review: Fire Chief (9/25/84),
Chief Building Inspector (9/19/84), City Engineer (11/19/84), Park
Director (9/26/84 and 10/19/84); study meeting minutes, 11/13/84; aerial
photograph; notice of hearing mailed 11/16/84; and plans date-stamped
11/20/84. CP discussed revisions made to plans in order to provide
drainage to the street, lan3scaping and open space provided, staff
comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
C. Giomi clarified that the expiration date for the present application,
if approved, would begin as of the close of the next Council
meeting unless appealed and not the approval date of the previously
approved Condominium Permit for a six-unit project on this site.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mrs. Elizabeth Brosnan,
was present. There were no comments for or against the application and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Possibility of attaching a condition to
require upkeep of the lot prior to the commencement of construction of
the project; it would be permitted to attach a condition that the
property be maintained in a safe and habitable condition although the
enforcement of that condition could be difficult.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this Condominium Permit with the
following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshall's
9/25/84 memo, the City Engineer's 11/19/84 memo and the Director of
Parks' 10/19/84 memo be met; and (2) that the project as built shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped November 20, 1984; second by C. Schwalm. After question on
motion C. Giomi added condition,(3) that appliant be required to
maintain the property until construction is commenced. Condition was
accepted by makers of motion. Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
3. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 5-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1114 PALOMA
AVENUE, LOT 17, BLOCK 3, EASTON ADDITION,
CE Erbacher advised this map is ready for recommendation to the Council
for approval. C. Garcia moved that the Tentative Condominium Map be
recommended to City Council for approval; second C. Jacobs. Motion
approved unanimously on voice vote.