Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordable topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on conversion to six units at Cedar Avenue continued for parking review
Summary
An applicant seeking to convert a mixed‑use building at 403–405 Cedar Avenue into six residential units asked for a continuance; the Zoning Hearing Board agreed to table the matter to allow the applicant to pursue parking options and clarify permits and previous stop‑work orders.
The Zoning Hearing Board on Wednesday continued a request by property owner Jose Figueroa to convert an existing mixed‑use building at 403–405 Cedar Avenue into six residential units, citing unresolved parking and permit questions.
The item matters because a conversion would remove commercial space and add residential units in a building that the board and staff said is currently grandfathered as a four‑unit property with two commercial spaces; any change could nullify existing grandfathering and trigger modern parking requirements.
Attorney Kyle Franceschi, representing Jose Figueroa, described the building as a corner property where the ground floor formerly hosted storefronts and the upper floors are being renovated. Franceschi said Figueroa and other out‑of‑state owners have rehabilitated blighted buildings into housing in the area. Figueroa told the board his contractor applied for permits, electrical meters were installed and then “we got a stop work order. And then the contractor disappeared on me.”
Board members focused on parking: staff said the site previously was legally registered as four units with two commercial spaces and grandfathered under older rules, but converting the building to six units may require six off‑street parking spaces. The applicant said he would attempt to secure parking on the rear lot or across the street, and asked for help identifying the lots’ owners.
After discussion the applicant requested a 30‑day continuance to investigate parking ownership and to return with documentation or a plan. Board member motioned to table the application to the next meeting; the board voted to continue the matter by unanimous vote. The board recorded no final decision on the special‑exception request.
The record shows the board allowed a continuance and advised the applicant to confirm ownership of rear and nearby lots, pursue leases if necessary, and provide a drawing of proposed off‑street parking (9-by-18 spaces) if the lot is owned by the applicant. Staff (Abraham) said permit files will be reviewed to clarify what inspections and permits were issued before the stop‑work order.
