i have attached that perry i have attached that. in terms of the required rear yard, it is 924 square feet. that is the required square feet. the granted 12-foot encroachment, or the encroachment we re talking about is 331 square feet. that means we are providing approximately 600 square feet of the requirement. if you include the voluntary side yard setbacks, which no one has really mentioned, we actually surpass the required yard by 125 square feet. if i could have the overhead? uc on the side here, each side, the north and south side, these side yard setbacks are quite important to this huge site, specifically the northside setback, which adds great relief to the open space, yet is not recognized by the strict enforcement of the code. this is really a unique property. i am not going to take up all of my time. instead, about two letter answer any questions you may have. we made a commitment years back to set this back into the middle of the site. we are committed to see i
, please note the footprint is not the largest footprint on the blocked or the area. i have attached that perry i have attached that. in terms of the required rear yard, it is 924 square feet. that is the required square feet. the granted 12-foot encroachment, or the encroachment we re talking about is 331 square feet. that means we are providing approximately 600 square feet of the requirement. if you include the voluntary side yard setbacks, which no one has really mentioned, we actually surpass the required yard by 125 square feet. if i could have the overhead? uc on the side here, each side, the north and south side, these side yard setbacks are quite important to this huge site, specifically the northside setback, which adds great relief to the open space, yet is not recognized by the strict enforcement of the code. this is really a unique property. i am not going to take up all of my time. instead, about two letter answer any questions you may have. we made a commitme
the president of the planning commission. this has been looked at very carefully. the decision was carefully considered. i give the rest of my time to my partner architect. good evening, my name is theodore brown. instead of talking about the architecture, i want to talk about our clients, who think are very special people. when they first purchase this property, they met with the neighborhood and they spent a lot of time. they spent twice a week meeting with neighbors. the neighbors were complaining about the trash and garbage on the open space. they worked together and took out 10 loads of trash on the open space. garbage, and just trash. also, it is a big dog walking area. they have provided a trash can right next to their property for the people to drop their doggie doo. they ve been very good about cleaning up the open space. also, we met with a famous geologist and botanist to see how we could naturally improve the area, and we offered to do a pre-master plan for the
ago? yes, is remodel the envelope. vice president goh: i got it, thanks. on the motion from the president to deny the jurisdiction request, commissioner fung? commissioner fung: aye. > go > goh? jurisdiction is upheld. we could call item five, or i am wondering if you might want to either call that or item seven, because we have the department of public works sitting. i think we should go with five. if people could clear the item quietly, please. 5a? a and b. 5a and 5, appeal numbers 10084, 10085. for both appeals, 1321 de haro street. it is the protest of the granting on july 20, 2010, to bedrock structures l l c a rear yard variance. this public hearing was held and closed october 6, 2010. for further consideration today, both matters will continued to allow time for the variance holder and the zoning administrator to submit additional documents pursuant to the board s comments. president peterson: i want to make sure that everybody who needs to be here is
built. if it is going to be built, put a condition on it. do not make us come back and always try to enforce that. thank you. mr. williams? good evening, members of the board. i am steve williams. i am here representing star king open space. i am also going to give time to a member of the board of directors. as you heard, the most striking aspect of this case is that it has already been decided. apparently, the zoning administrator was not aware of the fact that this previous variance application was made in 1989. the decision was not issued until 1993. they waited until the litigation was resolved in court. but it is not mentioned. it is not reconciled in the new decision we have from july of this year. in 1993, the za decided that not one of the five mandatory conditions for a variance could be met. not one. this present decision finds in favor of all five. nothing else has changed. the law is the same. the site is the same. the only thing that has happened is the proje