[OldNorth] 630 F Street

[Tracy Marshall]

Dan.  Sounds like you guys made an effective presentation.  I would 
caution one thing, though.  Consider the argument that negative impacts 
should be born on-site, and the strategy of more lot coverage on that 
parcel rather than a taller structure.  Ms. Hunt's comments are on 
target, but that increase in lot coverage will erode the required open 
space on that parcel.  While that may be fine with the current 
resident, it will have an impact long into the future, after this 
resident moves on.  One thing we can count on is that most of these 
structures will outlive us.  So I strongly believe in crystal clear 
rules, and strict adherence to them.  Then the next generation won't 
wonder why we did this to them.  They'll be mad enough about government 
deficits.

Steve Tracy.
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 09:30  AM, Dan Quickert wrote:

> The Planning Commission turned down the 630 F Street application last
> night, by a 3-2 vote.
>
> Primary reasons for the denial were the project's scale and profile 
> for the
> site (shading, privacy, viewscape). Commission members stated that the
> increased Floor Area Ratio requested (52% vs 40% guideline) was
> inappropriate **with the current design**. They said that the project 
> would
> have been more acceptable if the same floor area was configured 
> differently
> - for example, one-story or with one of the stories below ground.
>
> The Commission denied the application 'without prejudice', which means 
> the
> applicant can come back with a revised plan.  And of course the 
> decision
> can be appealed to the City Council.
>
> The neighbors to the project's north came and spoke, as did Peter 
> Gunther
> and myself.
> The neighbors spoke of the impact the project would have on their use 
> and
> enjoyment of their backyard, on the lack of sunshine in their house in
> winter months. Peter and I spoke about the issue of the intent of the
> 'neighborhood guidelines' height limit for accessory structures vs 
> second
> units (the loophole); the small-scale character of the neighborhood; 
> the
> small lot sizes; cumulative effects of piecemeal losses of viewscape 
> and
> open space; etc.
>
> One very good comment and positive suggestion by commissioner Donna 
> Hunt:
> those who are getting a benefit from a projected use, should bear the 
> costs
> of that use. Thus the negative effects of a project should be kept on 
> site
> as much as possible.
>
> In this case, the negative impact is crowding or loss of openness.  
> This
> can be kept on-site by making the structure 1-story, which will take up
> more backyard space (onsite) rather than sky-space (offsite). (that's 
> my
> paraphrase of it, not her actual words)(actually this whole line of
> reasoning is something I spoke about in front of the Commission on a
> different project)
>
> Dan Quickert
> _______________________________________________
> oldnorth mailing list
> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>