Now, the property at 1215, 29th avenue is developed a Single Family home. Its quite long and dense and it only provide an overview and be available for any questions. The first enforcement action regarding units on this property was a d. B. I. Complaint from the ground floor in 1999. That enforcement process moved slowly. There were other compliments filed over several years. The Property Owner filed a new Building Permit in 2014, nine years later to remove the unit. That permit was issued but never completed. Theres no evidence or documentation that the two illegal units were actually removed. Planning Department Engagement began in 2018 when the complaint was filed. The department obtained documents from 2011 and 2014 that clearly described two illegal units out ground floor, which at that time that the Property Owner did not dispute they were working with d. B. I. To remove those illegal units. In 30day notice for owner movein in 2018, the landlord stated she was occupying in illega
The project sponsor stated that there was a larger project next door. Variance are be precedent setting. The fact that there is a variance granted here does not immediately justify this variance, but for me, a couple factors here. The building, as we know is historic, which can generally, as you know, restrict or direct development on the lot. There is a pretty large front set back of about 10 feet. This is a much shorter lot than normal, about 75 feet deep. Just if seeing this project without context, my response was negative, that, you know, just encroaching all the way to the rear property line, but looking in the context here, and i think it is what in my mind is unprecedented as the Development Pattern on this block, and the number of buildings that are developed in this manner, including extensions that go to the rear property line, so that, to me, allows me to support a variance that they are seeking here. I think a code compliant alternative would probably be more harmful to th
Immediately justify this variance, but for me, a couple factors here. The building, as we know is historic, which can generally, as you know, restrict or direct development on the lot. There is a pretty large front set back of about 10 feet. This is a much shorter lot than normal, about 75 feet deep. Just if seeing this project without context, my response was negative, that, you know, just encroaching all the way to the rear property line, but looking in the context here, and i think it is what in my mind is unprecedented as the Development Pattern on this block, and the number of buildings that are developed in this manner, including extensions that go to the rear property line, so that, to me, allows me to support a variance that they are seeking here. I think a code compliant alternative would probably be more harmful to the pattern here, which i think has some unique character to this block, so for those reasons, i could be supportive of the variance theyre seeking here. Thank you
Commission president wolfram. President wolfram here. Commission Vice President hyland . Commissioner hyland here. At this time. Members of the public may address the commission on items of the interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I have no speaker cards. Yes, i do. Please come to the microphone. My name is arnold cohen, and i spoke to you two weeks ago about 3620 buchanan, 2016010079 coa. Last week, i spoke to you about the 1973 city resolution declaring the entire area of block 459, lot three, as historical landmark 58. This area includes 3620, 3646, and 3640 buchanan, and 5890 north point. This time, i want to quote to you several passages from resolution 88. Quote, the resolution and boundaries of the landmarked site, being lot three in assessors block 459, which known as 4640 buchanan, end quote, and again, all the addresses i said,
General public on. Members of the public address the commission for up to 3 min. On any matter within the commissions jurisdiction and does not appear in the agenda. Speakers shall just for most of the commissioner. The lack of response to the commission or Department Personnel does not necessarily constitute agreement or support of statements during made during Public Comments. Any Public Comment . Seeing none, [closed session] [gavel] mdm. Sec. Item number three approval of the minutes. Approval of minutes from regular meeting arcade 2017. So moved. Any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. [gavel] commissioners . Second. All those in favor say, aye. [chorus of ayes. ] opposed, say nay. Item number four certificate and indulgent of appreciation. Public Information Officer Jonathan Baxter 2 certificate and acknowledgment of appreciation of herman duron or guerra, arun ran over, Jennifer Diego cervantes for the quick and Decisive Action they displayed o