From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Fri Dec 19 09:50:23 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:50:23 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 530 F Street In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Had I known other people going to appear at the Wednesday hearing, I and others would have turned out. (Appearing alone is often quite ineffective.) But, puzzzle of puzzles, I received the below message on Friday morning. It is therefore just a little late to use as a basis for action last Wednesday! Andy, is there some way we can avoid this kind of problem in the future? John Lofland >Hi Everyone - > >Wednesday evening (12/17) the Planning Commission will be reviewing >the revised plan for adding a second home on the lot at 530 F Street. >This is the home right next to ours -- to the south. > >The project is the first item on the agenda at 7:00 pm. > >Richard and I will be going to express our concerns with the project. > >1. The proposed 2-story building has a few cosmetic changes, but in >essence it is little improved from the previous plan. The square >footage is 1,122, only 50 SQ FT less than the previous plan. > >2. The proposed structure has an FAR of 51.6% (20 percent over the >maximum FAR). > >3. Because the proposed structure is over 20 feet tall and directly to >the South of our back yard, it will not only loom above us, but also >cast a very significant shadow. The architect's Solar Access Study >shows that the proposed building will shade a big portion of our back >yard most of the day. > >It will blocks just about all morning sun! > >This is especially upsetting to us because our neighbor misleadingly >showed us the Solar Access Study, but only for 12 noon -- the time of >the day when the least shadow is cast. (We didn't see the full Solar >Study until we looked at the actual plans at the Planning Commission.) > >4. The proposed building will present a significantly altered profile >from Sixth Street. We are also concerned that if this home is allowed >to go up as currently designed, it will later be used to justify a >large structure like the one the Co-op has been talking about building >along the other side of our back yard. (The Monster House on the corner >of Sixth and G is what the Co-op already uses for comparison >purposes...see latest issue of Co-op members' newspaper) > >Richard and I are not opposed to our neighbors (530 F Street, or the >Co-op) improving their properties and/or adding more living spaces. But >we are opposed to excess and greed. Especially when it hits so close to >home. > >To share your thoughts on the project, please come to the planning >commission meeting Wednesday night. > >with good wishes, >Wrye and Richard >704 Sixth Street >530.753. 9662 > > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apwallace at microfab.net Fri Dec 19 11:17:31 2003 From: apwallace at microfab.net (Andrew P. Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:17:31 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 530 F Street In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200312191917.hBJJHftK027203@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> There was a hang-up somewhere in the system. The message did not come to me for approval until 8am on Friday morning. I approved it by 9am. And there was nothing on my end that slowed the process. I have not seen this slow of response before. If it happens again, I will follow up to ideally determine the cause of the hang-up. It's unfortunate that the message was hung.it was time critical and very relevant. Regards, Andy _____ From: oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of John Lofland Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:50 AM To: info at cognitiveliberty.org Cc: members at oldnorthdavis.com Subject: Re: [OldNorth] 530 F Street Had I known other people going to appear at the Wednesday hearing, I and others would have turned out. (Appearing alone is often quite ineffective.) But, puzzzle of puzzles, I received the below message on Friday morning. It is therefore just a little late to use as a basis for action last Wednesday! Andy, is there some way we can avoid this kind of problem in the future? John Lofland Hi Everyone - Wednesday evening (12/17) the Planning Commission will be reviewing the revised plan for adding a second home on the lot at 530 F Street. This is the home right next to ours -- to the south. The project is the first item on the agenda at 7:00 pm. Richard and I will be going to express our concerns with the project. 1. The proposed 2-story building has a few cosmetic changes, but in essence it is little improved from the previous plan. The square footage is 1,122, only 50 SQ FT less than the previous plan. 2. The proposed structure has an FAR of 51.6% (20 percent over the maximum FAR). 3. Because the proposed structure is over 20 feet tall and directly to the South of our back yard, it will not only loom above us, but also cast a very significant shadow. The architect's Solar Access Study shows that the proposed building will shade a big portion of our back yard most of the day. It will blocks just about all morning sun! This is especially upsetting to us because our neighbor misleadingly showed us the Solar Access Study, but only for 12 noon -- the time of the day when the least shadow is cast. (We didn't see the full Solar Study until we looked at the actual plans at the Planning Commission.) 4. The proposed building will present a significantly altered profile from Sixth Street. We are also concerned that if this home is allowed to go up as currently designed, it will later be used to justify a large structure like the one the Co-op has been talking about building along the other side of our back yard. (The Monster House on the corner of Sixth and G is what the Co-op already uses for comparison purposes...see latest issue of Co-op members' newspaper) Richard and I are not opposed to our neighbors (530 F Street, or the Co-op) improving their properties and/or adding more living spaces. But we are opposed to excess and greed. Especially when it hits so close to home. To share your thoughts on the project, please come to the planning commission meeting Wednesday night. with good wishes, Wrye and Richard 704 Sixth Street 530.753. 9662 _______________________________________________ oldnorth mailing list oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dutchm at dcn.org Fri Dec 19 12:22:29 2003 From: dutchm at dcn.org (Donald A. Martinich) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:22:29 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 530 F Street In-Reply-To: <200312191917.hBJJHftK027203@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> References: <200312191917.hBJJHftK027203@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: >There was a hang-up somewhere in the system. The message did not >come to me for approval until 8am on Friday morning. I approved it >by 9am. And there was nothing on my end that slowed the process. > > > >I have not seen this slow of response before. If it happens again, >I will follow up to ideally determine the cause of the hang-up. > > > >It's unfortunate that the message was hung?it was time critical and >very relevant. > > > >Regards, > >Andy I would have showed up if I had seen the message but it has yet to arrive at my isp. But, I did email the commission a similar letter in time to be read before the meeting. They aparrently got the message. Keep in touch, Dutch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wrye at cognitiveliberty.org Fri Dec 19 11:51:27 2003 From: wrye at cognitiveliberty.org (Wrye Sententia) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:51:27 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] Update on 530 F Street Project In-Reply-To: <001301c3c662$b58801f0$0b01a8c0@Heidi> Message-ID: Re: [OldNorth] 530 F StreetFYI-- The proposed project at 530 F street was "denied without prejudice" by the city Planning Commission at their Wed. Dec. 17th meeting and we're happy about that. From what I understand, this now means that the applicant can either return to the Commission with revised plans (ie, a one-story building that doesn't block as much skyline or sun); or can appeal their application with the City Council to go ahead as they have proposed. I'm not sure what the timeline is on this, or what recourse there is for further objection (should the owner stick to her plan to build a 1200sq. ft. 2-story, second house on her lot.). I assume there's no Old North meeting for Dec. 25th, but would be interested if anyone has input on what the procedure is in this case. The real issue, is the zoning of the Fst block as "R-2" rather than "R-1" as, from what I understand, the old north community desired, but was told was "inconsequential" in the revised zoning debates. Now, because of a loop hole in the zoning, the proposed project may be pushed through. happy holidays to one and all! Wrye Sententia 704 6th Street 753-9662 -----Original Message----- From: CCLE [mailto:info at cognitiveliberty.org] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:44 AM To: Wrye Sententia; Richard Glen Boire Subject: Fw: [OldNorth] 530 F Street ----- Original Message ----- From: John Lofland To: info at cognitiveliberty.org Cc: members at oldnorthdavis.com Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [OldNorth] 530 F Street Had I known other people going to appear at the Wednesday hearing, I and others would have turned out. (Appearing alone is often quite ineffective.) But, puzzzle of puzzles, I received the below message on Friday morning. It is therefore just a little late to use as a basis for action last Wednesday! Andy, is there some way we can avoid this kind of problem in the future? John Lofland Hi Everyone - Wednesday evening (12/17) the Planning Commission will be reviewing the revised plan for adding a second home on the lot at 530 F Street. This is the home right next to ours -- to the south. The project is the first item on the agenda at 7:00 pm. Richard and I will be going to express our concerns with the project. 1. The proposed 2-story building has a few cosmetic changes, but in essence it is little improved from the previous plan. The square footage is 1,122, only 50 SQ FT less than the previous plan. 2. The proposed structure has an FAR of 51.6% (20 percent over the maximum FAR). 3. Because the proposed structure is over 20 feet tall and directly to the South of our back yard, it will not only loom above us, but also cast a very significant shadow. The architect's Solar Access Study shows that the proposed building will shade a big portion of our back yard most of the day. It will blocks just about all morning sun! This is especially upsetting to us because our neighbor misleadingly showed us the Solar Access Study, but only for 12 noon -- the time of the day when the least shadow is cast. (We didn't see the full Solar Study until we looked at the actual plans at the Planning Commission.) 4. The proposed building will present a significantly altered profile from Sixth Street. We are also concerned that if this home is allowed to go up as currently designed, it will later be used to justify a large structure like the one the Co-op has been talking about building along the other side of our back yard. (The Monster House on the corner of Sixth and G is what the Co-op already uses for comparison purposes...see latest issue of Co-op members' newspaper) Richard and I are not opposed to our neighbors (530 F Street, or the Co-op) improving their properties and/or adding more living spaces. But we are opposed to excess and greed. Especially when it hits so close to home. To share your thoughts on the project, please come to the planning commission meeting Wednesday night. with good wishes, Wrye and Richard 704 Sixth Street 530.753. 9662 _______________________________________________ oldnorth mailing list oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dequickert at omsoft.com Fri Dec 19 20:24:25 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:24:25 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] Update on 530 F Street Project Message-ID: <01C3C66E.18B4A520.dequickert@omsoft.com> Wrye, The applicant has 10 days to appeal to the Council. In this case, it would be December 29th because of the intervening holiday and weekend. I don't know when it would get scheduled for a hearing. If it goes to the Council, their decision is final. Your only input into the procedure would be any communications you make to them, in writing and/or at the hearing. If the Council gets it, it will be interesting. Ted Puntillo would surely approve it. Mike Harrington may be sympathetic, and he would be a good person to talk with well in advance of the hearing. I don't know about Ruth Asmundsen; she's sort of difficult to read. Wouldn't hurt to have a talk with her, too. Come to think of it, it may be a good idea to talk to Ted too, just to see... Susie Boyd will probably not be able to participate, because of her home's proximity. I don't know if Sue Greenwald's house on C Street is close enough for a 'conflict' (300 ft); but she would be sympathetic to your plight. Dan Quickert On Friday, December 19, 2003 11:51 AM, Wrye Sententia wrote: > Re: [OldNorth] 530 F StreetFYI-- > > The proposed project at 530 F street was "denied without prejudice" by the > city Planning Commission at their Wed. Dec. 17th meeting and we're happy > about that. From what I understand, this now means that the applicant can > either return to the Commission with revised plans (ie, a one-story building > that doesn't block as much skyline or sun); or can appeal their application > with the City Council to go ahead as they have proposed. I'm not sure what > the timeline is on this, or what recourse there is for further objection > (should the owner stick to her plan to build a 1200sq. ft. 2-story, second > house on her lot.). > > I assume there's no Old North meeting for Dec. 25th, but would be interested > if anyone has input on what the procedure is in this case. The real issue, > is the zoning of the Fst block as "R-2" rather than "R-1" as, from what I > understand, the old north community desired, but was told was > "inconsequential" in the revised zoning debates. Now, because of a loop > hole in the zoning, the proposed project may be pushed through. > > happy holidays to one and all! > > Wrye Sententia > 704 6th Street > 753-9662