Their conflicts of interest. The Party Sponsor is disingenuous. In their brief they say, please note that none of our scope of work would have been properly allowed if the proper procedures had been followed. None of these violations would have married had the violations not been caught and proper permits obtained. That argument can be used for any violations forced to get a new permit documenting all corrections to existing violations. Should any accommodations be given to project sponsor . Project sponsor claims financial and construction challenges to this unit. They also request a variance to the front and rear yards. Are there any exceptional circumstances that warrant giving of some accommodation to project sponsor . Project sponsor caused his own hardships. No one else is to be blamed. What is to be approved . The proposed plans dated from october 24 are compliant with the Fire Department as presented by planning staff. Thats what the staff report says. Add four wet sprinkler he
Particularly in terms of the health of the commercial corridor toward, the fact that retail is changing and that 340 square foot, that is tiny, but we want that. We want to be able to use that. This would be a legally approved project and along with the sign approval so we would use whatever permits would be associated with it and we would be signing it off. We have opportunities for the Building Permit and this decision by our commission. Either way. Did you have further . No. I sure commissioner melgars concerns and i things we should be doing whatever we can to support retail. I would second the motion but would also make a comment it feels like some additional legislation is necessary to get staff a little bit more discussion in this area under circumstances like this so it is not a oneoff going forward, but the size of of the cost the retailer seems out of whack with what the benefit from what the city would get from a smaller sight. I second the motion. The motion is to approve t
October 24 are compliant with the Fire Department as presented by planning staff. Thats what the staff report says. Add four wet sprinkler heads at the rear facade as a local equivalency from d. B. I. That was a quotation from staff report. How can adding four sprinkler heads to an existing Fire Prevention system be prohibitive . Why should variances be granted . No other adjacent property has similar structures in the front or rear yards to necessitate variances, especially the ones that were selfinflicted. Since the initial hearing in may of this year, the Planning Commission has been consistent in its requirements for the project. Increase density. Other projects, regardless of who is to be blamed, have been subjected to the same decisions by this Planning Commission. 284 roosevelt way, 655 alvarado street. It would be exceedingly unfair and set the wrong precedent to make an exception for this proje project. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Request .
Normally storage does not require windows of this kind. Storage does not require doors going downstairs into the garden and coming in from the breezeway i think this is somewhat unusual and i would like to ask staff as to whether or not that was discussed, considered, or was the applicant asked on what the Storage Space already entails. The option would be to not have this wall dividing the storage area. You could have a three car tandem garage, although that is not very feasible for moving cars around. And a. D. U. Would trigger new requirements under the Building Code, which might make this project unfeasible for the applicants. There is a narrow lot. They would have additional egress requirements. When this project started, i believe in a. D. U. Was not possible until you would need at least three years to add it, so at the time it could have been added with thought for the future, but i believe the staff and the project architects can speak more directly on the requirements under t
And i would like to ask staff as to whether or not that was discussed, considered, or was the applicant asked on what the Storage Space already entails. The option would be to not have this wall dividing the storage area. You could have a three car tandem garage, although that is not very feasible for moving cars around. And a. D. U. Would trigger new requirements under the Building Code, which might make this project unfeasible for the applicants. There is a narrow lot. They would have additional egress requirements. When this project started, i believe in a. D. U. Was not possible until you would need at least three years to add it, so at the time it could have been added with thought for the future, but i believe the staff and the project architects can speak more directly on the requirements under the Building Code because they did investigate this. So if no one else has questions, i do have questions about the existing tenant and i do not see anything in the packet. I see that her