commissioners, mary gallagher, for the dr filer. i want to talk about four issues, non-confirmity, topography, sunshine and privacy. first, non-conformity. the project is existing -- mostly in the requires rear yard, making it a non-complying structure. so there is a very longstanding interpretation that says when you add to the front of a non-complying dwelling and doesn't have at least 25% rear yard you have to provide for the balance of space elsewhere on the lot. this is apinterpretation about lot coverage and providing open areas in the place that is based on the established patterns of adjournal development. this interpretation is not about providing open space on a deck that has no benefits to anyone, but the project sponsor. it's about creating areas without lot coverage in places that benefit adjacent development. so existing and proposed site plan-- the proposed site plan leaves rear yard -- project sponsor seas 17%. so you need another 5-8% open space he is where on the lot. it doesn't have it and so this project is not c
we had mary gallagher weigh in. >> i appreciate that. both commissioner antonini and commissioner moore, i have worked on all of these suggestions with the dr requester's representative for over a month. at the end of the day, we have no solution for this, which is why i proposed a solution of cutting back the rear of the building in order to make sure that it is compliant with all of the codes that we have. because on a 25' lot, if you are going to do a courtyard that is 6 or 10', you are left without a building. it is very, very important that the building as it is we're chopping off 4' in a good width of the building. if we have a problem with lot coverage, or insufficient rear setbacks, we can take off the real estate of the building burb it's important especially on the first and second floor as wide as it is. >> thank you for your opinion. i would be inclined to say that certainly as we work together before this comes back, we look at both alternatives. there was the alternative of taking some off the back as project sponsor said.
. >> i'm mary gallagher for the march. my daughter is 15 she was in los angeles last weekend for a program like jeopardy so our household has been stoop in latin words this is applicable to this hearing (latin) it means deeds not words. the project sponsor has given us a lot of words in the rehearing request representing the issues. we were responding to all the issues and the sound issues in the brief but i think this has to do with one issue the top floor. the project sponsor didn't feel this meshes well, this will cost him time and money to fix. not that i recall i'd be sympathetic to an issue but here's the thing the liberate hill neighborhood association harassing has been you're going the project sponsor not for months but years to refine the mass of the buildings to respect the buildings on hill street. the planning commission imposed a condition of approval that encouraged the project sponsor to work with the department staff to a refine the building mass and encourage a step down along third street and finally his
Fetching more results