Meeting Information

PRESENT: Vice President John McInerney, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam el Qadah, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter, Easteller Bruihl.

SPEAKERS: None

SPEAKERS: Commissioner Saunders apologized for her late arrival.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the demolition permit on condition that action be stayed until a valid site permit is issued for a replacement building.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to continue the matter on the site permit to April 17, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Ken Taymor, attorney for the Appellant, said he feels the matter should not be on the agenda because the Appellant hasn’t seen the plans for the revised project yet, though he doesn’t oppose a project on the site. He just wants the project to comply with all Code requirements and procedures. Originally the issue had been the fire escapes. He didn’t oppose the granting of the demolition permit so long as actual demolition is stayed until a permit for the proposed building has been approved and issued.

Warner Schmaltz, project architect, explained the procedural history of the proposal including the approval by Planning, the appeal to the Board and the enactment of the live-work moratorium by the Supervisors. The fire escape problem was solved with revised plans already submitted. He described the changes that are being proposed to change project from eight live-work units to eight residential units and how this new project needs conditional use authorization and rear yard exception from the Planning Commission. The Planning staff gave the proposal an okay, though the financing for the project is difficult because of the permit pending in the appeal process.

Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the zoning requirements for conditional use and exception in the subject district. He thinks the Commission process will take four or five months if the applications are timely filed. It is a completely new project as far as Planning is concerned.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to continue the matter to April 17, 2002 with the public hearing still open.

Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the 6-0 Planning Commission vote to deny the project in its present configuration and how he thought it can be revised by shortening it by eight feet, thus reducing its mass to the degree necessary to be in harmony with the neighborhood. Also, he thought a light reflection device on the roof might be helpful in mitigating the shadowing effect on the neighbor’s house. Though the staff had recommended approval, the Commission felt it intruded too much into the neighborhood.

David Cincotta, attorney for the Appellant, said that the Appellant hadn’t had legal counsel at the Discretionary Review hearing before the Commission and he had not presented a shadow study to them. He showed photos to show the minimal impact of the proposed building on the neighbors. He feels the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission are not justified by any extraordinary circumstances and the shadow impacts complained of are not extraordinary.

Mimi Lee, daughter of the Section 14 Principals and speaking for them, and for her brother, said that all the mitigation measures being offered by the project sponsor are old ones and have already been rejected. The tree removal has already been agreed to. She then reviewed the issues in her brief, including the reduction of light to the bedrooms and bathrooms, her shadow studies illustrated with a small spotlight on a model, obstructions to windows, analysis of the Commission’s conditions which would allow a project with adequate floor area for the two-family building, how the design could be used to make a four-unit building illegally, and that the neighbors are opposed to the project. She said the trees and bushes don’t obstruct the bedroom windows and the trees’ shadows are negligible.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR COMMISSION: Marushka France said her property was adjacent to the rear of the subject property and the project will make her deck unusable. She felt the project is too massive for the site and should be no higher than the three-story house of the Lees.

Thomas Turowski said the project’s shadowing would greatly affect the flats nearby along Judah Street. He said the rear of the building was very important to the neighbors because of the sunlight and feeling they provide. Gabriel Perstya described his contacts with the Planning Department and how he had been discouraged from filing a DR request and thus had been left out of the whole process. He said most of the buildings along Judah Street are of the size of the Lees and he thought the proposed building should also be of that size.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APELLANTS.

There being no further business, Vice President McInerney adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m.

______________________ ______________________________

John E. McInerney Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary