HomeMy WebLinkAbout1504 Davis Drive - Staff Reportdrz���
i
P.C. 4/11/88
Item #�--
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNER
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR A DECK TO EXTEND 5' INTO THE REQUIRED
15' REAR_YARD AT 1504 DAVIS DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Mr. and Mrs. Foley are requesting a variance to the rear yard
setback in order to construct a 10' x 20' deck which will extend 5'
into the required 15' rear yard at 1504 Davis Drive. The deck will
rise 5' to 6' above grade.
The plans also show a second story addition to the house. This
part of the project meets all zoning requirements and a building
permit has been issued for the work.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building
Inspector and the Fire Marshal (March 8, 1988 memos) had no
comments. The City Engineer (March 10, 1988 memo) comments that a
soils report may be required if the deck will be within 10' of a
rear or side property line down slope. Planning staff would note
that the rear 5' of the lot is in a drainage easement and cannot be
utilized. The fence on this property borders the easement as do
the fences of adjoining properties.
Applicant�s Comments
In their letter of explanation date stamped February 29, 1988,
Bolinger Design Services, representing the applicants, comments
that the unusual circumstances related to this property have to do
with the topography. The lot slopes down away from the street so
that the ground floor at the front of the house is 6" above grade
but the ground floor at the rear of the house is 5' above grade.
The letter goes on to explain that due to the slope of the lot the
applicants do not have full use of their rear yard. Also, since
the rear of the lot abuts the Peninsula Hospital site, adjacent
property owners should not be affected by the proposed deck.
Findinas for a variance
In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the property (Code Sec. 25.54.020
a-d).
(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;
z
(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
(d) that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The reasons
for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
February 29, 1988; and
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer�s March 10, 1988
memo shall be met.
��d�'rr.ct �G��;
Adriana Garefalos
Planner
AG/s
cc: Christiane Foley
Bolinger Design Services
PROJECT APPLICATION ��d"TM °- 15�4 DAVIS DRIVE
ft CEQA ASSESSMENT �RLJNGAME project address
� '� pro�ect name - if any
�..o.,,.....
Application received ( 2/29/88 )
Staff review/acceptance ( ) "
i. APPLICANT Chri sti ane E. Fol e.y 697-1023
name telephone no.
1504 Davis Drive, Burlinqame, CA 94010
appTicant s address: street, city, zip code
Bolin er Design Services 795-7842
contact person, if different reenpoint t. telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION Newark, �/� 94560
Special Perr,iit ( � Variance* (X ) Condominium Permit () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
VARIANCE for construction of a 10' x 20' deck which will
extend 5' into the required 15' rear setback. The deck will
rise 5' to 6' above arade.
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.66.(J50 ) (
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
(025-201-190 ) ( 2 ) ( 13
APN lot no. block no.
( R-1 ) ( 5,250
zoning district land area. square feet
Christiane Folev
land owner's name
Reouire� Date received
(�res) (no) ( _ )
(9'ts ) ( no 1 ( - )
( Ray Park
subdivision name
)
1504 Davis Drive
address
Burlinqame, CA 94010
city zip code
Proof of ownership
Owner's consent to a�plication
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS � --
Two bedroom sinale family dwelling with detached two car
garaqe. Building permit issued for second story two bedroom/
bath addition
Reo,uired Date received
(yes) (� ( 2/2g/88 ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewali:s and
(yes) (au�
(yes) (�
(.�) (n�)
(other)
curbs; all str�ctures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; 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).
( 2/2g/gg ) 1p�-tar nf Pxnlan�t�n
*Land use classifications are: residential (show � dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PR�P�SAL NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY
Proposed c.onsiruction, 3elov� orade ( - Sf) Second floor ( - SF)
�ross floor area � First floor ( 2 Q � SF) Third floor ( - S�)
d
Pro.ject Co�2
Pr000sal Requir�m-�nt
Front setback 21'-fi" 15' min.
Side setback
Side y�rd 5' -6" 4'
°ear yarci ' 1Q' i 15' mi n.
eck
Lot covera,e
Deck heinr
Lardscaned ar•e.
rin �1rP Dk('.i..
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
39% 40% max.
� 5' to 6' -
a - -
. z � z
7
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) '
EXISTING IP! 2 YEARS IN 5 YEARS
after � after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
Full time emoloyees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/custor!iers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Tri� ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
-�
C�
�=
��_
�_
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Peninsula Hospital to the west (rear); residential uses on
�11 adjacent lot�. Thi� �s _onform to th general plan
Required Date received
(xes) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(y�s) (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) - 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. 36� Recei ved by B• Wh i ttemore
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to th best of my kno ed e and belief.
Signature iL l '� � Date �� <l
a icant '
- STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
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:
19 ,
Categoricall_y exempt, per CEQA Code Sec.
15303. new construction of small structures
� C� ����� �-L-��Sffi
Sig ature of Processing Official tle Daie Signed
Unless �ppealed within 10 days hereof the �ate oosted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLaRATIO^J OF POSTIMG Dat;e Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjiary Lhat I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I!�osted a true copy of the above Ne��ti��e Declar�tion ai, the City Hall of said City near
the doors to iha Council Chambers.
�xecuted at 3urlingame, California on
Ap�ealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
19
JUDITH l� '4�TTI> CITY CLERK, CIT`, �' uURLINGAhiE
STAFF REVI EW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received memo attached
City Engineer ( 3/4/$$ ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( _ ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( — ) (yes) (no) (yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOP! MEASUP.ES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
a
Does this project comply with Request comments from the
all Fire and Building Code Fire Marshal and Chief Bldg.
requirements? Inspector.
Does the project meet the Review site and letter;
four legal findings required make determination.
to grant a variance?
- 3. CEQA REQUIREP�EMTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Cateqori cal 1 y exempt
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted (
Decision to prepare EIR (
Notices of preparation mailed (
RFP to consultants (
Contract awarded (
Admin. draft EIR received (
Draft EIR acce�ted by staff (
Circulation to other agencies (
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received (2�2g�$$ )
Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( )
Is application ready for a�ublic hearing? (yes) (no) Recommended date ( )
Date staff report mailed �t aoplicant (��/�i( ) Date Commission hearing (4/11/88 )
Application approved (�/ ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no)
Date Council hearing ( ) A!�olication aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
�li!.i!� � I.l �� � %•
. -� �.
� BOLINGER DESIGN
, � 37253 GREENPOINT STREET
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA 94560
SERVICES
(415) T95-7842
LETTII2 OF EXPLANATION
�;, „_ ,
Nw�;iv�� �:. _
id Lr
FEB 2 � 198�
C;" '" u^Ur^�Lh1'GA�V(�
,f.ING D[�'T.
Bolinger Design Services prepared Working Construction Drawings for a second
story addition with existing first floor improvements. Apart of the improve-
ments would be the addition of a redwood deck for use in the existing bedroom
�� 2. Thus, allowing practical use of a deck at the same level and elevation
of the existing first floor line. The proposed deck would extent 10'-0" into
the 15'-0" rear setback which is acceptable if the deck elevation is no greater
than 24" above grade.� The drawings provided will allow the Staff an overview
of the entire project (which as be approved for permit without deck) and the
decks' relationship to the project and logical owner enjoyment and use.
We apply for relief to the City of Burlingame's zoning ordinance which restricts
the construction of a redwood deck greater than 24" above grade in the rear
setback at the address of 1504 Davis Drive as follows:
a) The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property
is the overall existing topographic conditions. The front yard adjacent
to Davis Drive falls with a gentle slope at the front elevation of the
structure. From the front elevation of the structure to the rear elevation
of the structure the topography falls 5.5' in elevation in a linear
dimension of 63.5'. as a result, the rear elevation first floor line is
5' above grade as opposed the front elevation first floor line being 6"
above grade. (Exhibit 1 and 2)
For the Commission to deny this application would result in undue loss of
property use due to exceptional circumstances of the topographic conditions
that adjacent property owners have filled and or graded for storage buildings
and swi�rLing pools.
b) To deny this application would also deny the property owner the preservation
and enjoyment of the property by architecturally joining the deck to the
first floor line for logical property development and use. To construct a
deck 3' below the first floor line would deny the applicant enjoyment of
practical use between the existing room and the deck area.
�'�' S� e!.e-i�tc.� d�a.-k.c� M� �� z y� ��$�. �
Co r re �fc�d � h fd ��'►1qFiov� . Dec k ctc fvocl�
��dS �' %ntn � {'�e. r�$tJi�-
1 S � reaJ� � � .
c) Granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental to property
or improvements of other property owners as the rear of the property has a
5' Public Utility Easement with Peninsula Hospital property abutting the rear
property line. At present, no development has been planned in any area
abutting this property. (�chibit 3)
d) Present ordinance only allows a 24" elevation of a deck off grade in the
existing building's setback. The ordinance does not consider the topographic
conditions, which in this case, causes the first floor line to be 5' above
the rear grade. To grant the variance would not adversely affect the
existing ordinance, but would allow minor modification under circtmistances
created by the topographic conditions. The ordinance is a specific
control factor in overview. Variance to the ordinance on a case by case
basis with cause and logic need not adversely affect the comprehensive
zoning plan of the City.
� BOLINGER DESIGN
,�� 37253 GREENPOINT STREET
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA 94560
T0: City of Burlingame
Planning Department
SERVICES
(415) T9S-7842
March 24, 1988
�Ee��vE�
f�IAR � 71988
c�-Y c�F t��u�;i ;n�r_aV�
�• � • �,��:,��:�;
This document shall serve as an amended Letter of Explanation for the variance
at 1504 Davis Drive; Burlingame, Ca., as follows:
Statement: The proposed deck would extend 10'-0" into the 15'-0" rear setback.
Amended Statement: '�'he proposed deck would extend 10'-0" into the 20'-0" rear
setback.er exceed the ordinance by 5'-0" into the rear
setback.'���� j
K�������
��� �� " ����
CITY �OpF k�U^'n/�LiNGAME
Ci�p%.V�}�u[AL�(ifliVi�
P�.�.':1tING DLP7,
R�e�.����D
MAR �' 7 1988
CITY Of [fUR�iI�I;F�M�
PLf.':NING DEPT.
at.
,�
t i�
,�� '
,. i �
;..5..
�t � :��
:'i. ;
�
�
�.r•
�'w''�';. � . .
r��� .�al 4� .
F��a.
�� 3 •
��•,� .
l ;y,6_'' ;��Nlt �,`'y�,�•.5,, .
j r.�7r �\
t 4 ( 1./. f► ,
�~�p i� •,h •
'�fr � ��� `'-� � � ' .'
F ��1 �. �{ �.
A��f� � , i! ,�.� • � y• 9
. ' '� �,�� �}tr��r }•, ' �•, '���• l,y � _+-
�[T � D ��' f(� / /•,, t*�r
� :-,. �'��',._ + �, �������.�;� .ai
C���' �'� r i� F,',� ��j ��'� �,�'' p�r.�1
� , M �����
� ; .y. "�� .� . �,4 � ;r d'�
i:��,.�A;��•�� �t�C-J� �����(���;! I.r�1i
' � � x *� a }� �l�
_. . . ��! �e^� qJv
.� � � . � � �f �
d7 � } �
i ' • � . �� -� �
_ I � •l, � ��
- • ' `! l
. J
r� �' -�-
�.
�} �+�,
( i,
a r' 1
�w-� �
r • � 1.
•h
l�
�. S. . ,
:�
� � k
�aw
♦
, ;
.�
_ c. 'e�
�. �� . ,: .
� '..'„f' . �
��'�. V .
DATE : /��t / 9��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING iNSPECTCR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: �SO � ��S
a cl�vc� �
�9.�;� -
�s'
�'et6a �,�.
An application has been received ror the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ��� D
at tl�eir /���I/Zc� //, �y���meeting. We would appr�ciate having
your comments by � /9 �
.T�v/c� P I�7 a1 C� �d��JJ 6df� � P�! Gfc�. . S
Thank you. � �,
T� t' �� %L K i w �/ �� �, � `�~ �
/
�� C.- � j"'1 A�t G� %'�- � �
�
.��
� ry �
Ll�1i�
���.
'�
DATE: /��► /%�
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER '�
CHIEF BUILDING ECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM:� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: �-S�y _ ct��`
�' �vc'� �
.�9.�:� _
�s'
'Lli1i�
� .l'e t 6a �,�.
An application has been receiveci �-�,,r the above projec� for review by the
Planning Commission. The applic.:tien will be scheduled ror �C � O
at tl�eir // �'�18��meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by � /9�
flid�v/� P /'yJ a-� � Zd��,GJ �i�f�' a-�' Py Glc� � S'
J
Thank you.
To : QCi4n�N, �v G
�Ro r, : N, (�£
'N
0
Ct�r� �,Ts
3 - �-s�
�
� �
�
I
-,
7"� ��.
DATE : /�� / 9��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER \
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM:
SUBJECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
iso
�9.�:�,� _
'Llili �
L:a�
0
�s'
���Q �/`.
An application has been received ror the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for ��� D
at tf�eir /77�?/Zc� //, �18��meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by ��,/ /�3��'
---y--
r.�i� P�� � za�riyJ 6�� � P� �� , s�//.
Thank you.
/ r �i��
/ � � �6GQ.��s'i
L� �
/� / �GZ��nf.�i�l
��� ` �
�o ��
�.
r
�' � �
� � �f �� �'� � " G��/ `
� �� ��� G�� ���� ���
1� `� -� � ���
� - � .�� - �� J��' �'� �-,�
����� �� `
� ���-� '� �i
�?� -��� j %y�-
��
�
�
�� � � *
� :;... , ., -
;- . � �
.. �; � �
' . 1• .n . ;a�. , �
� �cR � � �
� M j `\. �
� � • ��� . 7
�' t ti tf�_ � � � —
� #�r� ��
� � }�� �^T �
� � ''�.. + !.
� �/ •� ?' �. r:
���1�t[ .L y ��/� � � ; 1 / `�
`' � � � • , �.
,� �-� � v � _ ` � ' � �; • �, �
� �yw� , ^*'�fj �� � � ,� � � .-��
�. '� • . • � _.
,. . •�,r . -�
�. ` '� � �
�,. � - '� .� .�- h ;�
'� � � � Y - � '"'�
'� h r
� � � �. . , . � -,� , . y
-� . � , '��/ , ` - �a
. + . ^ � l.y � �
�, � �� �r i � ,� `. _ , .
�. ����� ' '` , •
.�, / �� ' -�' � ' ,
� � � �. `� o �
PE,�IAi��A � �I . �
�4LnsP�TAL I � , � a. .
w ��
� i t • `� ^ / � , � � �
. �dM���� � �^ � t_
r Y ' ' �/ � E v`
� �>66 f � `
r � - ,
� ' �4
\ �iO� ' i. • �
�' // r 7�,' �� .�: ' ��
� � �_ ��, � O' o��o ' � + _
O _.} J-
, �q�� • '� ••h•` �
� � ,�� � �
'6S Jj . �• _{, �
�6 � � �
sl ,A �
�� \ ` � /�� � • '' � ��'• � � .
�!�' \h + . <,�, • ` �/
,
�o� J� �6S> , '�'q '� ,
\ .� 6 '4 ''�
�4 \ry �� ,- � ss � 'l�:
�ti � R : - �r
� � ,.
.
� \\� �y ' y ' 4j-4 "
r �l : �• • tr �
��° � � � . � ��. .� �
� � �.
� . - - +�, .
� -'�SG �� `
� � �t
0 /�� •� �. �^' r
� � ,
�� s) � ��� . � � � � ;i�,
� 2 � �`" � ,, ,'� �
_. � � ,!v �c > =,�m ��
� �: � s3 "qL �'� - q � J� � # �M �
� �.
' ,�. �� '` � � "y� /� r ;�� ''.
� S � . � . f ' \ � i i \ r 1
�
�hP C�tt� �f ��.trlt�t��rrt.e
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 940I0 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the llth dav of Avril, 1988 , 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 Burlingame will conduct
d pUb�1C hearing OC1 the application for a variance to construct a 10'x2�' dPc�k which
will extend 5' into the required 15' rear yard setback at 1504 Davis Drive, zoned R-1.
�
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 PLANPIER
April 1, 1988
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
April 11, 1988
4. VARIANCE FOR A DECK TO EXTEND 5' INTO THE REQUIRED 15' REAR
YARD AT 1504 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's comments, findings necessary to grant a
variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Responding to Commissioner question, CE discussed Engineering's
concerns about soil moisture under decks and their requirements for
a soils report. Staff advised the square footage of the deck is a
part of the 39$ lot coverage.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Chris Foley, applicant, was
present. She commented that the plans for the house addition have
dors which would access the deck in the back, presently she does
not use the rear property because there is no access except from
the front yard, with the deck and stairs to grade she will get more
use of the back of her property. Responding to Commissioner
question, applicant stated she can see into her neighbor�s property
now from her bedroom window; she plans to install some screening on
the deck. Bruce Bolinger, designer, stated the deck was designed
with piers underneath; if further soils information is needed the
CE will advise at building permit stage. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances because of the
slope of the lot so that the backyard is unusable, the house is
situated in such a way it is difficult to get around the property,
applicant will install screening for the wind on the neighbor's
side of the deck which will also add privacy for the adjacent
property; this site is next to Peninsula Hospital which has much
vegetation, the project will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance with
the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped February 29, 1988; and (2) that the conditions of the
City Engineer�s March 10, 1988 memo shall be met.
Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved unanimously on roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A THREE BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
�_.
AT 1133 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 _...R-''
_ - -. . . ,�. .�.�- -,-
Reference staff report, 4/11/�8..,__„_with�--at�achments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the reques�;� taf�"�^e�a�, Planning staff
comment, applicant's �.letter, findings necessary `"�-�ant a
variance. Two cgn�d�i�ions were suggested for consideration at �he
public hear'
�
��
�
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 1988
ACTION ITEMS (NO PUBLIC HEARING REOUIRED)
Page 3
1. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR
A FIVE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 1105 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
(LOT B, BLOCK 19, EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME N0. 2)
Reference City Engineer's staff inemo, 4/11/8�8. CE Erbacher advised
this condominium project is under construction; staff recommended
approval. C. Harrison moved for a orie year extension of this
tentative condominium map; seconded by,�`C. S.Graham. In comment on
the motion CE advised he prefers a on�'year extension as opposed to
only six months. Motion was approve,d unanimously on voice vote.
�
2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF� PARKING VARIANCE AT 1209 HOWARD
AVENUE,�'tiZONED C-1, SUB A. A B
Reference staff'`�report, 4/1 /88, with attachments. CP Monroe
review this reque t, histor of the site and variance approved in
1987, applicant's �eason fo the request.
�
C. Garcia moved to �pr e a one year extension of this parking
variance to April 6, 1 8; motion was seconded by C. Harrison.
In comment on the mo o it was determined no construction plans
for the project hav bee received by staff; a Commissioner was
concerned about antin an extension with no idea when
construction might begin. ��,,�Applicant was not present; it was
suggested the item be tabled. �,�
C. H.Graham mov d to table the''a;�tem until the applicant can be
contacted for ' formation regardin�, commencement of construction.
Second C. S.Gr am. Motion to tablc�,the item failed on a 3-4 rol
call vote, Cer Ellis, Garcia, Jacobs`�nd Giomi dissenting.
Motion to g nt the request for extensi�o� to April 6, 1989 failed
on a 3-4 r 11 call vote, Cers H.Graham;''�.S.Graham, Harrison and
Jacobs dis enting. A Commissioner commented she did not vote for
the origin 1 variance and will not vote yes f�or the extension.
`1
With th statement he thought Commission shc�uld know what the
timetab will be for this project to improve thc� site, C. H.Graham
moved grant a six month extension of the pa�cing variance to
Octobe 6, 1988. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia�,and approved on
a 6-1 0ll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no. ��
�
3.' PARKING VARIANCE - 745 PLYMOUTH WAY - ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of April 25, 1988.
I ■