Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Merger topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff recommends disapproval of Page Street merger; commissioners grant short continuance
Summary
Staff told the commission the proposed legalization of a merger at 1314 Page Street conflicts with flat policy and exposure/code requirements; the project sponsor pleaded hardship, and the commission voted 4–2 to continue the item to April 25 to allow the applicant time to pursue a variance or revise plans.
Planning staff recommended disapproval of a conditional use request to legalize a merger at 1314 Page Street and to relocate and enlarge a ground‑floor dwelling during the Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 29.
Matt Dito, planning department staff, said the department found the current proposal “not necessary or desirable and contrary to the general plan,” noting the ground‑floor unit lacks code‑compliant exposure and the proposal would reduce the size and quality of the replacement flat compared with the original unit. Staff also said the project as proposed would likely require a variance to address exposure and other code issues.
Project sponsor Catherine described a multi‑decade home ownership history and urged the commission to approve the request, saying the work was done with permits and inspections in the past and that reversing the merger would create severe financial hardship. “Please allow my family to keep our home. Our future is in your hands,” she said.
Commissioners debated whether an applicant‑sourced expansion of the ground‑floor unit to approach the replacement‑size threshold could avoid a conditional use or a variance, and whether the commission should use its discretionary authority under section 3.17 to change numeric thresholds. Zoning Administrator Corey Teague confirmed that, as proposed, relocation of a unit without required exposure would trigger a variance process.
After extended discussion and public comment, the commission voted on a procedural motion to continue the item to April 25 (or May 2 as an alternate). The continuance passed 4–2, with Commissioners Imperial and Moore voting against. Commissioners directed staff and the sponsor to use the continuance to pursue a path that would either produce a code‑compliant ground‑floor unit or consolidate hearing steps with the zoning administrator’s variance process.
Next steps: The sponsor agreed to pursue options to grow the ground‑floor unit and to work toward a joint hearing with the zoning administrator; the commission signaled April 25 as a deadline for a substantially revised proposal.
