have met with ariel ford to review our project as proposed and try to reach some common ground to address her concerns and still maintain the integrity of our family s plan to build two equal family-sized units. listening to the commissioners suggestion to reduce the rear massing, we have done that by 14 inches. we have pulled in the first and second floor by 12 inches, the third floor by 2 6 and the fourth floor by 3 6 . to dress softening the rear of the building, we have clipped off north side corners on the second, third, and fourth floors. we have always been sensitive to our neighbors on 20th street based on modifications based on feedback and after submitting to further address concerns about the perception of the building and access to light and air. we provided a comprehensive shade study that concluded the shading would be marginally different than the existing home. we are 37 feet away from the ford s home providing ample opportunity for light and air. during a r
mass of layers down and then our proposals are on the middle right, lower, there is an actual parity between the sponsor s keep and our scheme where in their proposal, it actually steps up where as the contours of the block step downward. and so we re encouraging you to take a very close look at our proposal and we feel like it s an appropriate limitation to the massing of the project and we ought to be able to work within those massing limits. thank you. president olague: thank you. i m going to read a few cards here of people who are in support of the d.r. requester. jane segal, uta rikart, joe quigley, tony kim. excuse me, there are two d.r. requesters, i think we both get president olague: of course. the second d.r. requester gets five minutes. that s my fault. sorry about that. could you put the slide back up on the screen? just go ahead and start talking. thank you for your time today. i m here to represent myself, my husband, and our three young children. we
. theman planning commission regular hearing for july 28. please turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. we are on items 19 a, b, and c for 2009.068 3-d, 2009.0685 d and case number 2010.0577 dd at 309 through 311 eureka street. mandatory discretionary reviews and a publicly filed discretionary review. on may 19, 2011. following public testimony, the commission continued the matter until july 28, 2011. the public hearing does remain open. good evening president olague, members of the commission. the item before you is a mandatory discretion review as well as a discretionary review application. it s on the east side of eureka street between 21st street. this was before you on may 19, 2011. i want to summarize a little bit about the project. the proposed project is to demolish the two-family home and construct a new one. the lower unit would have three bedrooms, the upper unit will also have three bedrooms. concerned expressed in
and i would like to read a few points. at the last hearing for this project, i put forward the proptation that the generic design was an odd response to the neighborhood, to this gabled port could domered character. they struck me as having produce aid design that was too dimensional, too large and lacking scale and definition. i know the work as their architect as i said earlier and was was hopeful that he would bring you a design that had more of the qualities that had actually won him awards all over the city and in this case, qualities of the neighboring cottages. i have surveyed the changes they have made and i have to say that i m also disappointed. they seem to have cut and paste here and there and actually 14 inches, they may have well have taken one inch away from the tough. they seem to have cut and done a slope proof, but not really changed the character of the design. it seems a bit lifeless, a little intent on a very large mass which should be reduced, especially