tv [untitled] May 23, 2014 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT
don't break it. >> is it working thank you very much. we don't have the screen right now oh. thank you very much. this is 2 flight avenue this historic was a empty lot if he looking at look at the photo basically that the subject site and ms. occurringries house on 92 circular and the 92 freeway this is the highway of the flood right there. this is a view of the front of the house with ms. occurringries building that's at the uphill site as you go up you'll see the
top great deal of this is the flood avenue block faced to the north this is right here 8 flood avenue. this is flood avenue to the excuse me. circular with ms. occurringries house here again, this is a view from the rear of two flood you can see this is ms. occurring religious you how's and the deck and the gentleman's house the back of his building and this beyond across the street is the 280 freeway and this is our site plan showing you our footprint this is one of the notches to put this against 8 flood in our
designing revisions. here again, this is the ground floor we were one of the concerns of the neighbors said they wanted more than one parking we've got enough parking for 3 cars and, of course, there's a large 15 foot driveway in the set back that allows for temporary parking and there's a guest room and upstairs a family room with a kitchen. this is a deck over the structure below. again and the third level is 3 bedrooms with two bath and one of the features with the planning department they've asked us to no such that to open the staircase and they asked us to open the be masking to create the open staircase similar to
the adjacent buildings and asks you to put a fwlat flat roof to match the front plain of circular avenue building this is the back the building we deliberating kept the profile low and this is the low deck. from is side drawing - it's not responding here. this is a profile of ms. occurring religious house and her deck is right where the doted lines are and our deck is below the railing we're conscious in trying to keep our small property owner rear deck relative to hers ours is short than her deck in the rear.
again, this is the how the grade goes up we wurd this floor into the hill. our neighborhood meetings was in january 7th the preapplication meeting we traded e-mails and drawing another on april 18th with the neighbors the appellant was there also in all the meeting and a separate appellant meeting we outlined this through the earlier letter how to come to scheme a, b, and c reducing the mask and height. after scheme c we filed scheme c with the planning department. the planning department through the scheme d and e made a provision that went to the design to r t the residential design team and came back with responses.
we responded to that we sent the drawings to the neighborhood and scheme f is actually a mass reduction of the rear done by the project sponsor he wanted to bring the building back on the deck back be more in line with the ms. occurring religious building and i don't know anything else we can tell you the proportions and materials we went through the with the staff we thought it was equatable i'll answer any questions you have at this point >> okay. mr. sanchez.
>> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department the architect did a thorough job in detailing 9 process by which it was developed it's kind of confirming the act it's located within rh1 the single-family home zoning directed acrossful from highway 280 it's building permit was submitted last march and the preapplication process was implemented there were provisions made and we were made aware of the neighbors concerns they redesigned the project i held two meetings to discuss this and a series the recommended changes and all the
issues the design team pledged the designs and all were address regarding the map of the scale and the third store not uncommon for the planning department to recommend an approval where there's neighborhoods with predominantly 2 stories so the building is actually has maximum setbacks from the front set back from the location of the front set back that's a 25 percent rear yard and doesn't encroach and this 3 story set back from the wall so 27 feet from the front property line it has a disabled roof but the rormdz were changed to be flat roofs
there were other concerns about the garage door width and it has been addressed subsequent to that the nose was completed between september and october of last year the department was aware the concerns but no discretionary review filed has been note the permit was issued and primarily the concern related to the 3 stories it's currently a vacant lot it's a change from there having a 3 story building but the broad operation for the design line it's on a standard practice that a third story predominantly where there's 2 stories may in fact, be okay not only from the front building wall but from the
front property line so noting the top graphic of the lot the slight up sloping has she timed so from the rear it's more like a 2 story building. the floor plans are it is my duty i didn't and there's not a lot of extra space and the 3 bedrooms and two bathes on that third story it has a living room and half bath and 3 bedrooms and laundry facilities and the ground floor has a guest room a play room and utilities and the garage so in terms of if you were to remorseful the third story it will severely change the little are we looking at perhaps a longer building to accommodate that family oriented plan so this raises some
concerns if you don't have the third story to have the ability to have a single-family. i'm available for questions f that you have >> i have a question mr. sanchez so the lot if at the didn't get the third story how far can we build. >> they have they could extend back ten foot or so at the lowest levels and get the 25 percent rear yard their according to the plans they're showing a 38 square feet lot conform and theres a 25 percent requirement. >> hardy towards the circle
last year. >> the 8 flood as essential setbacks so it's at the maximum of the code requirement is 15 feet we'll have concerned about the building extending further and we prefer development when it's appropriate to be hire a third story rather than encroaching on the neighborhood space. >> mr. duffey anything. we'll take public comment. please step forward. >> this is my card. good evening board of appeals i'm raymond changing we live on the left hundreds of the open
lot as identified by skrerp my family and neighbors came here today to oppose k s m development for building a 3 story building for one thousand plus square foot this. the sunny side neighbors have been speaking to deaf areas all they did was turn a monster house to another monster size house 3 stories is too big and doesn't fit our neighborhood style because the house is 2 stories at all. the city planning guideline it's essential for a building scale to be comparable where decrease surrounding building to preserve
the neighborhood character their 2 story at all the houses are only 5 hundred and 60 square feet and way less than the 4 hundred square feet. those are the buildings they're proposing and blocking the sunlight the city guideline demanded when permitted by the planning code building stenos can't be appropriate into the rear yard doorns the context of the other buildings and out of scale rear yard conditions can leaving residents boxed in and the proposed 3 story building is at all and deep. into the backyard making the neighbors feeling boxed in and cut off our sunlight.
we're afraid that the large construction will turn into an apartment building are multi single-family home they're for the resale they want to build the biggest building possibly and make the most profit and burden the neighbors they'll be the one to suffer that will greatly hurt >> neighborhood and please reject that proposal until they're willing to change the two stores. >> are you to the north or the south. >> i'm 8 flat. >> so the white house.
>> did we check at the time. >> can you explain your relationship to the appellant. >> my amendment the boyfriend. >> you you know when the boyfriend gets involved. >> the households i was asking. >> we maintain separate households. >> i'm charles c.j. smith commissioner president lazarus and commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speaking speak in support of the appeal you should have any previously support it is the history of sunny side i'll be happy to answer questions. the developers and lawyers will have you to building the permit complies with the planning codes this appeal is based on the
cities failure to enforce their own guidelines. may i have the offend. the additional specification of the planning code they must conform to the residential guidelines that insurer the scale is in corners are the neighborhood. the proposed building will have a sloped roof mr. g corrected that it states there's with only one window there are, in fact, two at the level one of which is the sole source of sunlight in the room. it includes a letter sent to ms. curry and me mipth e picket the
report alleging to a meeting if the developer wants to negotiate in good faith neither of us received a response the purpose of the letter seemed to building cooperative before the board. the most glares omission is any responses to the concerns and the reason for ms.coriay filing the appeal. hesitate not concerned with the fencing open the neighbors or neighborhood he doesn't deny it is oversized for its location he didn't deny it will create hardship for the neighbors those concerns are the core of the appeal this appeal is not about the legal limits but what's right and best for the
neighborhood. please vote to limit the size of the project ms. curry doesn't want to stop the project only the limitation of the size if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> i have one question have you been involved from the very beginning. >> yes. i was one of the initial folks. >> what was are you aware there's a discretionary review process. >> yes. >> why didn't you participate in that. >> it's the planning department is somewhat of the appellants have regular meetings with the department say, i understand i sent two letters to the planning department and the only response the letters were received. >> you're aware there's a
discretionary review process review why explicit you file a discretionary review against this project earlier on. since upper involved from the beginning >> at the - well, i don't know i suppose i could file for a discretionary review it's an o pack process. >> a so you weren't aware you could apply. >> the developer was - >> so you thought it would iron itself out. >> they renewed the size from a 4 thousand square feet house they only wanted to reduce the size and say they reduce the size. >> thank you very much. okay >> is there any further public
comment. >> good evening board of appeals. i am - i live in >> i'm sorry can you speak into the microphone i can't hear you. >> i live in 8 avenue i'm emily. i'm against them from the building a tall building 3 stories high building because the building is only 2 stories high. i'm against them from building a big building standing all the
way taller to the backyard. because it block our sunlight >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment. seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal ms. curry you have 3 minutes >> marry making video and his team indicated they've reduce the size of their project while that's try and the documentation within the city shows that it doesn't get to the core of the matter which is that this new project is an enormous building filing most of the lot. and when compared to the homes
not only my home but the homes in this whole neighborhood it's just significantly larger and it when you look at out the windows that it will be blocking it will a wall it extends the full stent of my home and above my home a wall completely blocking any home from front to back and it is true for the chang. a they certainly haven't addressed the core concern. the neighbors have been specific in asking for a two-story home which is truly consistent with the neighborhood. and i just feel it necessary to
call out again, this is proposed building is more than two times the square footage of my home or the chang's home think or average homes >> mr. silverman 3 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. very brief just a couple of things. there were three or four people who 0 testified tonight none of them claimed they didn't receive the notice in the mail that's required by planning department informing them of their reporters rights none of them said they didn't receive the notice. in addition mr. g sent each of them on eel september 18, 2013, it says chang, raymond and a
charles. the planning department informs me the scheduled thirty days notification period will begin and i'll forward you the agricultural drawings. i have that if anyone want to see it. i'm sure that marry sanchez will firm that and number 2 the city employes a professional planning staff including the architects to review the permit paksz to make sure that any residential or any type of building is appropriate for the neighborhood it's built in and spent a lot of time on the residential design team examined this on several occasions and the planner spent
over 16 months before and after on the design. we ousted to give cede as an to the planning department and the zoning person who said the third story is appropriate for a neighborhood with 2 story buildings. on the point of the residential guidelines that were put on the screen the guideline in question said the building should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood not the same mass they would have said that in the guidelines. the zoning administrator has explained why the planning department buildings it's consistent and don't want a
longer rear yard structure. so i'll leave it at that >> i have a question counselor your first point was the fact all people had notice of the dr. >> right. >> we're at a dead note hearing. >> why is that relevant. >> they didn't file a request to the planning commission. >> are you suggesting they carton bring their containments to the board. >> oh, they failed to captive their requirements. >> are you arguing they are denied. >> i'm suggesting. >> did you provide some sort of
impact consequences about the structure. >> gary we'll ask the staff we had necessary discussions but it wasn't relevant because we brought in photographs the meeting notes that were forward to the staff. i didn't read through the meeting notes were there any concerns raise about the light >> mr. chang at 8 flood was concerned about the mass of the building and next to him we notched the building all the way down to the ground we couldn't match it but cut it to the sky. >> the light issue is it about
the structure to the side vs. the yard in the back or on top of the roof where's the impact on the light the adjacent properties. >> on the two at the 92 circular ms. occurring religious house has windows so the windows are not on the property line her building is at the time set back she's not required to cover the windows not on the property line. and please a chang on the west >> that's the light issue. >> he didn't have appropriate line window and we explained over noon he'll get plenty of light the front of the building face south he's west of our building there will be a minimal
impact of light in the morning but. >> that the part you've done the light no such. >> would you like for me to show you. >> yes. i don't understand all the light implementations. >> this is an exhibit in our brief; right? and so i can see it. >> i can use the overhead. >> my vision isn't perfect. >> okay. i'll use the screen. >> tell me which document. >> sheet one point zero the site plan and