expansion or changes proposed, no net loss being created. there are two lots and will be two lots. no legal parking spaces are limited. there are no detriments to the public welfare, as specified in the zoning administrator's decision letter. we met on february 23, at which time the zoning administrator approved the request with a restrictive condition that any future physical expansion of the buildings, even in the buildable area, shall require a new variance. he also approved it because all five of the required findings were met. when we applied for the variance, we became aware there were some neighbors opposed to the proposed changes. as such, we convened a neighborhood meeting on february 12 that was attended. all of this is supplemented by materials in your brief. we also conducted individual out reach, resulting in 11 letters of support and an additional six signatures on a petition. finally and most importantly, the neighbors directly adjacent to us, with whom we share a property line -- we compromised with them and ultimately came to a legal settlement in which they are no longer opposed to the changes. i would like to emphasize that the appellant attended the neighborhood meeting, did not attend the hearing on february 23, did not participate in the legal settlement, as he had every right to, and did not communicate directly with either of the owners of the subject properties to indicate there were further concerns going forward after the neighborhood meeting. because the hearing date changed, the neighbors that were coming to speak in support of this were no longer able to come. which brings me to the rebuttal of the appellant's misconceptions that were presented in the brief. first of all, the decision will not create the smallest lots in the neighborhood. he points to this lot at 3 macedonia's street -- macedonia street as being the smallest in the neighborhood. you can see there are three, including our own property at 909. adjacent to us is the property at 290, substantially smaller than the example provided. there are other samples provided in your brief. the decision will not remove one off-street parking place. you can see the curb cut here. there is another one here and another one in front of both the structures. you can see the existing fence. it was in place when we bought the property. i will leave the rest of the legality of that parking space to the zoning administrator to describe. notification of the planning department hearing was posted as required. there was a typo. we made every good-faith effort to correct that typo. we also did extensive outreach. everybody in the neighborhood did know when the hearing was and what the issue is, as evidenced by the tremendous outpouring of support for that project. finally, this would not open the door to the development of two substandard lots. the lots can legally be developed in their current configuration. there is nothing preventing us from building right now, and we have no restrictions. however, the owners have already agreed that no new development will be allowed. any proposed changes will require a new variance. in summary, you have seen this slide before, but i want to emphasize. there is an existing lot line that separates the bathroom and front door of my house from the rest of my property. by changing the lot line this way, we bring the lots closer to conformance with the city code, which would afford both of us the rights to our structures and a backyard, and will match the living conditions more closely. there is absolutely no evidence that the zoning administrator abused his discretion in this case. the owners of 260-264 mullen avenue respectfully request the board up hold the zoning administrator pit decision with no new conditions. -- the arizona administrator' -- the zoning administrator's decision with no new conditions. vice president garcia: i assume the zoning administrator will talk about what is legally required with parking. the curb cuts -- would someone get a ticket if they parked there? >> they are not actually painted red. next to the curb cuts, they are painted red. three cars can park, and regularly do, in each of those. vice president garcia: why is it painted red next to the curb cut? >> i will show you. this is a very tight turn, and 90 degree turn. it is tough for fire trucks to make that turn. the entire curve from here to here is painted red. vice president garcia: to allow clearance. all right. thank you. >> you are welcome. president goh: what you have the picture up, could you show me where the curb cut is on that picture? >> there is one right here. there is one right here. and there is one right here. you can see it in the pictures in that exhibit. the greenhouse is the smaller of the structures. -- the green house is the smaller of the structures and has that curb cut. they clearly go directly into the structures. president goh: so there is no parking in front of the curb cut? >> people park their. -- there. president goh: when were these buildings built? >> i know more about my structure than the other one. mine was built in 1927. i believe the smaller structure was built before 1910. president goh: what building, if we could have that picture again -- they were out buildings to one of the victorians there. could you point it out? >> i have heard this. i have never -- i have no proof of any of this. it is neighborhood discussion. apparently, this home at 256 mullen avenue had these two lots associated with it, but i cannot speak to how those were broken off. i can explain why the lot line bisects the house -- i cannot explain why the lot line bisects the house. we are just trying to correct a wrong. president goh: thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject variants is pretty straightforward. -- variance is pretty straightforward. the properties are located within a single-family zoning district within the bernal heights special use district. the properties are configured in such a way that both buildings straddle property lines. this is an exceptional circumstance that does not apply to most properties in the city. it is not something we would want to further. it is against any municipal code requirement. we would want all buildings to be on their own properties. the first property, 260 mullen avenue, is 26 feet deep. based on records we have, the building was constructed in 1929. 264 is the triangular plot, roughly 906 square feet. the building there was constructed in approximately 1906, based on our records. both contain single-family dwellings. unfortunately, they do cross onto each other's lot, not a condition we want to maintain. the applicant submitted the request to change the law lines. it is not creation of a new lot. it is not a case of one lot that was developed with a building at the rear and then subdivided out. these are lots that have been subdivided for quite some time. unfortunately, it is a difficult situation to deal with in terms of property ownership, planning code requirements, and building code requirements. they are seeking to come closer into conformity with all codes and to have each dwelling on one lot only. there is a slight increase in size of the 264 lot. conversely, the property at 260 decreases in size slightly. both lots would be below the 1750 square foot requirement. but overall, we believe it brings everything closer into conformity. i would argue it gets rid of the smallest lot in the neighborhood because you are increasing the area of the smaller lots. ethel -- you are increasing it by more than 160 square feet. prior to the hearing, concerns were raised by neighbors concerning future development of the properties. i spoke with a representative and explained that currently they could develop their properties and did not see why a subdivision with a lot line adjustment -- they could continue to develop their properties. they expressed concern about future development, although there is no project proposed. i listened to the concerns. the project's sponsors were amenable to adding a condition requiring a variance for future construction. this is only the second variance i have heard that is now on appeal to this board. i believe the project was justified. all five findings were met. that is already in the decision letter. i will go to one -- to a point the appellant had with regards to the off-street parking. the claim is that there was parking provided at the rear of the lot, 260 mullen avenue. any parking in that rear yard would be illegal and we would issue a notice of violation and penalty. that is not allowed in the planning code. and, -- the buildings were constructed prior to the parking requirement in the planning code. the parking described would not be allowed. the appellant also complains about the notification issued, the mail that notification. -- mailed notification. the zoning district -- we have to have the type of property and the type of application. i would argue that rh-2 has greater development potential than rh-1. i would argue that if we advertised it incorrectly as rh- 1, that would be a concern. in this case, they cannot do two units. if people had concerns about development potential, that would have been triggered more by the rh-2. there was quite an extensive amount of community out reached done by all parties concerned. we receive letters in support and opposition to the project from many in the neighborhood. i believe there was notice of the hearing. we had notice of the variance hearing and this appeal hearing. we can rest assured that notification was properly done. i think that summarizes most of the issues i wanted to raise. the condition that is their -- by the appellant's own admission, he is not opposed to the project. he wants a more restrictive condition, more restrictive than i think is appropriate. the condition we have in place, i think, is very effective. it would allow future construction, but only with a variance. that is a tremendous burden to place on the property owner. they could maintain the properties as they are and not be subject to such a strict requirement. that sums it up. i respectfully request the board uphold the variance decision. president goh: i have a handful of questions. can you talk about the rear yard requirements and how that might -- they might be impacted by this division? by the subdivision? >> the property was analyzed by planning staff. it was determined no further variances were required. we are giving one of the properties a rear yard, reconfiguring in a more logical faction -- fashion that would place the frontage on mullen and have the rear yard, more consistent with the neighborhood open space. i will double check that before coming back for a bottle. -- rebuttal. president goh: here is a question. if the property line stayed where it is, are both buildings considered non-conforming? let me ask a follow-up question to that. if that is true, does planning code section 188 prohibit developing them as non- conforming properties? >> no. under the non-complying structure requirement, you can expand on the portion of the building which would be complying. president goh: whichever part of each building seemed to be complying, they could build up. >> exactly. for example, the lot for 260 mullen avenue would be completely complying with the rear yard requirement. they could develop, right now, up another two to three stories. but with the condition we have placed, they could not do it without a variance. the condition is limiting the development of that property. president goh: the curb cut we looked at before seems to suggest that might have been a garage. you can see seems under the new windows. -- seams under the new windows. i wonder when that was converted. >> we assumed it was once a garage and became a dwelling unit. i do not have the exact date when it converted. but the department has no issue with the fact that these are existing single-family dwellings. president goh: thank you. >> i will check into the rest. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, i wanted to revisit the potential for future development. in your 305 findings, finding 4b, you talk about what -- were the property project sponsors to expand in the future, variances would be required. why would it be ill-advised for this board to nsr the permit? >> i do not quite understand. there is no building permit here. vice president garcia: in other words, we cannot put an nsr because this is say va-- is a variance hearing? why can't we instead raise the bar a little bit and say that not only would it have a variance, but would not be allowed? >> that is within the board's authority. vice president garcia: i was not really confused about whether it was within our authority. i was asking you if you thought it would be ill-advised for us to do. >> i do believe so. i think what we have here is a distinct case from the hearing last time. in that case, there had been a development already at the property. they maximize the development potential. we did not think it would be fair to allow further expansion. in this case, they are doing things in the right order. they can go through that process. they are not seeking to expand buildings now and subdivided in a week or a month. i think it is an exceptionally high standard to go through the variance process where one would not otherwise be required. it is the only time i have invoked such conditions. vice president garcia: thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. mr. ballinger, you have three minutes. >> if you want to indulge me for an extra minute, i can explain why the curb cuts are red. the city map shows that as no parking all along one side of mullen avenue, but the neighbors refused to accept that and took them on the signs. it is very congested. this dispute goes back at least 35 years. that is why the curb cuts remain red. the city did come out and repaint the curbs. but some spots remain from that history. i have a few points i would like to make. i still don't understand why the owners could build as the buildings exist right now, when they are clearly crossing existing property lines -- how they could get financing, city approval. their assertion that they do not need this after all strikes me as hollow. i think they do need this if they plan to develop and enlarge their buildings. once again, the notion of several small lots existing in the neighborhood -- there are not. they are all built upon with large buildings that use a march to lot to develop. buildable small lots are not available. this lot, as approved, at less than 1100 square feet, would be the smallest lot with a livable building on it in, as far as i know, bernal heights, and definitely the neighborhood. most of the public sympathy was from personal friends of the project sponsors from other parts of bernal heights, further down the block. the neighbors really are concerned there is going to be future development on this lot. that is all i have to say. thank you. vice president garcia: i do not want to push on you, but i am having difficulty understanding how, practically, this affect you, other than the future for potential development, which we heard from the zoning administrator would require variances that would be a steep hill for them to climb. can you in a couple of sentences make me feel like i understand better your opposition? >> and many have climbed this hill and have succeeded in building substandard lots and doing developments which i think are very out of character with building such as these, which are outbuildings of a large victorian in the back. i think the reason they were so casually built across property lines is that whoever used to own the property never considered they would be actual developed -- the actual dwellings. they were utility bonds. -- barns. vice president garcia: your principal concern is potential for future development? >> exactly. i think if the commissioners would agree to limit that development i would be perfectly happy with the re-designation of the property lines. vice president garcia: thank you, sir. >> ms. kryc. >> good evening. i am going to speak on behalf of kelly kryc for her rebuttal time. i am with a law firm. we existed the owners of the property -- assisted the owners of the property in the supplement with the neighbors. they asked me to be here tonight and i agreed. i wanted to speak briefly to this issue of adding conditions that would preclude any future development on the property. i do not believe that the board could lawfully imposed such conditions, -- impose such conditions, given the evidence before you tonight. and the condition added to -- any condition added to a variance has to be consistent with the general plan. it cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary and there has to be substantial evidence for imposing it. if i can get the overhead, please. what you can see here is that these existing properties are developed less than their neighbors. they are developed less than is allowed under the planning code. you have single-story buildings where you are allowed to have buildings that could go up to three floors. you can see the property is immediately adjacent have nearly fall lot coverage, whereas these -- full lot coverage, whereas these have 40% and 60% lot coverage. it would be unfair to impose a standard on these properties which would dramatically limit development as compared to the neighbors. thank you. president goh: could you put the picture back up? which one has 45% and which one has 60%? the small one has 60% lot coverage? >> be better image to put up here would be -- the better image to put up here would be the proposed -- vice president garcia: you are talking about the proposed lots. but the existing law, the smaller has what percent -- lot, the smaller has what% coverage? -- what percent coverage? >> as you can see with the proposed new lot lines, the smaller house would occupy 450 square feet on a 1000 square foot lot. it has 45% coverage, which is significantly less than you are allowed under the code. it would also be one story in height. i think you could get three, given the height limits here. the larger structure at 260 mullen avenue would have about 60% lot coverage, more or less what you are allowed under the code. you could go back, i believe, another 10 feet. you could also go up another two stories. president goh: could you put the other picture back up and i will repeat my question? what is the lot coverage of the smaller of the two lots? >> the current coverage on this lot which is closest to the street -- we have not calculated it. it is close to 100%, with the exception of an area in between the two houses where the parking space was about 20 years ago. president goh: the way it is configured now, it appears the smaller, 264 mullen avenue, could not be developed at all because it would be considered non-conforming. go ahead and finish your rebuttal. >> this lot, you could still develop up. on this lot, it is a one-story building. develop further to the rear, you could certainly add stories to it. as far as the question about nonconformity, adding those additional stories would not be increasing the degree of nonconformity. you are allowed to go up within the height limit. >> thank you. >> thank you. review of the subject project against the requirements for h-1 and the special use project. the requirements require that once you calculate the maximum permitted building, you have to deduct up to 650 square feet of usable floor area to produce the overall mass that is allowed. that can take place vertically as well. given they haven't done that, they do comply with that because they aren't built out to the maximum envelope