Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves deck replacement at 2529–2533 Post Street over neighbor’s appeal
Summary
The Planning Commission denied a continuance request and voted unanimously to deny the discretionary-review appeal and approve the proposed replaced decks and stairs at 2529–2533 Post Street, finding the reconfigured design improves light and safety; neighbor’s fire-safety and noise concerns were noted but no representative provided rebuttal.
The Planning Commission heard Case No. 2012.0395 (discretionary review request) for 2529–2533 Post Street on July 25, 2013 and approved the applicant’s proposal to remove and replace rear decks and stairs. The project required rear-yard and nonconforming-structure variances previously granted by the Zoning Administrator and upheld on appeal to the Board of Appeals.
Neighbor Alice Lam requested a continuance citing a family emergency and the commission considered but denied the continuance after staff confirmed that Ms. Lam had contacted staff and been advised to submit a written request and/or send a representative. David Lindsay (Planning Department) summarized the case and recommended approval, explaining that the proposed deck reconfiguration would be set further from Ms. Lam’s rear wall than the existing structure and that the Residential Design Team found the project consistent with guidelines.
The architect, Andy Morrell, and the property owner explained the design adjustments: replacing a dilapidated deck, reconfiguring terraces and stairs to allow more light into the yards, and creating a safer structure for owner use. The applicant noted removing the existing unsafe elements was necessary and that the proposed arrangement would avoid recreating the current problematic configuration.
Ms. Lam’s concerns included the decks’ proximity to her property line, the one-hour firewall, and potential noise. She had not submitted written documentation at the hearing and had no representative to make a full argument; no rebuttal was offered during the hearing. The project sponsor provided letters of support from adjacent neighbors, and the applicant emphasized safety concerns and imminent need to replace a structurally unsound deck.
Commissioner Moore moved to deny the discretionary-review appeal and approve the project as proposed; the motion passed unanimously (5–0). The Commission found no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reversal of the earlier approvals.
Outcome: Commission approved project; the applicant may proceed with the deck and stair replacement subject to standard permit requirements.
