Just reiterate that you know, rh 2, this comes right from our planning code, which includes these statements, these statements are devoted to one family and two Family Housing with two large flats one occupied by the owner and the other one for rental. This proposal does not match whats defined in the rh 2 class use of rh 2. There are plenty of options to meet this. And refocusing back on the property we lost, this was a property next to the museum and you can see this is what our property will look like, this will be 22 ord, 24 ord, this will be the top on state street and the other side of state street. Its going to be sloping up the hill, im sure there are dimensional differences and this is a preview of what we can look forward to. This is the plot plan again from the project sponsor. I just wanted to point out what that means for a little bit of yard in the middle. You can see this is concrete wood and concrete and the open space in the middle of the rear yard is not much of green
Are options. Developers i believe contractors are very skilled in that kind of thing. The nileance of this variance, the ability to construct units on the property would remain available as other projects on the class of district. Again i wanted to show the alternative envelope that the project sponsor proposed and i have to reiterate that this averaging rear zone does not apply to this property. It goes further back than it should. You see there are a lot of opportunities that has additional housing for folks here in the community. And i didnt really focus on this one, but i wanted to just reiterate that you know, rh 2, this comes right from our planning code, which includes these statements, these statements are devoted to one family and two Family Housing with two large flats one occupied by the owner and the other one for rental. This proposal does not match whats defined in the rh 2 class use of rh 2. There are plenty of options to meet this. And refocusing back on the property we
Construct units on the property would remain available as other projects on the class of district. Again i wanted to show the alternative envelope that the project sponsor proposed and i have to reiterate that this averaging rear zone does not apply to this property. It goes further back than it should. You see there are a lot of opportunities that has additional housing for folks here in the community. And i didnt really focus on this one, but i wanted to just reiterate that you know, rh 2, this comes right from our planning code, which includes these statements, these statements are devoted to one family and two Family Housing with two large flats one occupied by the owner and the other one for rental. This proposal does not match whats defined in the rh 2 class use of rh 2. There are plenty of options to meet this. And refocusing back on the property we lost, this was a property next to the museum and you can see this is what our property will look like, this will be 22 ord, 24 ord,
Setting a precedent. In addition the existing open space on the lot is not useful to the residents of the home. This is 22 ord court, very steep slope. This is the rear of 24 ord court. Very steep slope. In fact up here about 45degree angle. This is a few looking downhill. So its got competent hill. There is no use for it by the residents. What the project will do is provide adequate open space through the use of deck and patios, significant green and landfill will fill the lot open space. The project will create open space which is much more suitable and better serving to the residents of the building. According to the citys tax records. 24 are over 2,000 square feet. These are not precedent setting when looking the entire street. The opponents have brought up a couple other issues. There are the issues of the significant trees on state street and 24 ord court. The trees have been certified to be a danger. The owner of this property has been since 2013. The staff has recommended remov
Dont understand which is the disparate impact. In other words, is it the provision that causes more proposals to go to more proposals to go to the housing or is it the provision that causes more approval of more. Youve about got to know what youre shooting at. The disparity tied to the practice is just the first step in the appal sis. The second step is whats the justification justification. Ill ask it the last time and let you get on. Youre saying you need justification, but for what . Which is the bad thing to do . Not promote low Income Housing . You say whats causing the bat effect, but whats causing the bad effect . It may be neither because the government may say in the first case, well this is our justification and that may be a just fi indication that holds up. The government may say in the second case, well thats our justification and that may be a justification that hold up. Do you think that a private developer would ever be found guilty of disparate impact because he owns a