From rgb at cognitiveliberty.org Thu Jan 15 15:51:49 2004 From: rgb at cognitiveliberty.org (Richard Glen Boire) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:51:49 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 530 F Street on Next Council Agenda Message-ID: Dear Old North Neighbors, Next Tuesday evening (1/20/2004) the City Council will hear the appeal of the 530 F Street Project, which seeks to construct a large two-story, 1122 sq. ft. house in the backyard of the existing home at that address. On December 17, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's project based on the following findings: "1. That the project would not enhance the character of the neighborhood and create negative impacts to the back yard area of the adjoining property to the north. 2. That the project does not provide a successful match to the existing architecture of the existing structure. 3. That the project would impact the solar access of the adjacent parcel to the north, especially in the winter morning and evening periods when the residences are used." We live at 704 Sixth Street, the home directly to the north of 530 F Street. We are opposed to the present plans. We are not opposed to development in general, nor are we opposed to a future plan for 530 F Street that minimizes the negative impact on our home and the surrounding core area neighborhood (as envisioned in the design guidelines). The fate of the project will be decided by the City Council on January 20. Wrye and I will be attending the meeting to restate our objections to the current project. Here are some of our objections. (We?re in the process of formalizing them vis a vis the Old North Design Guidelines): 1. The proposed structure has an FAR of 51.6% (20 percent over the maximum FAR of 40%). There is absolutely nothing about the project that compensates for this 20 percent excess. It?s an oversized building for such a small lot, and the FAR is an objective signal of its excess. 2. 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 in the mornings and afternoons. Those are precisely the times that we are home from work and often playing with Finn (our little boy) in the backyard. The currently proposed structure will also block just about all morning sun in our kitchen! 3. The proposed building will present a significantly altered profile from Sixth Street. It is not in character with the downtown neighborhood, nor is it even in character with the existing home at that address. (See Planning Commission finding 1 above). 4. If this home is allowed to go up as currently designed, it will later be used to justify additional oversized second structures in the neighborhood. Other people in R2 zoning wishing to construct a large second-structure in their back yard, will point to it as precedent. It violates a number of the Old North Design Guidelines We are also concerned that it will be used by the Co-Op to justify an oversized structure on the corner of Sixth and G. 4. The planning commission denied the application *without prejudice," meaning that our neighbor was, and remains, free to present a redesigned building for approval. But, rather than take into consideration the planning commission's concerns, the applicant is appealing the existing (denied) plan to the City Council. This is the applicant?s legal right of course, but we think it shows a complete inconsideration for our concerns (the immediate neighbor to the north, whose life style will be negatively impacted by the existing design) and for the impartial findings of the Planning Commission. Although we are upset by our neighbor's disregard for the negative impact their proposed project will have on our property and lifestyle, we do not oppose a redesigned project that strives to minimize the negative impact on our property and the neighborhood. But, our neighbor's appeal asks the City Council to approve the existing plan for the project, and (to repeat) makes no effort to minimize the harms that the Planning Commission has identified. If you are opposed to this sort of excessive second structure moving in to the back yard next you, please express your concerns to the City Council at the Tuesday (Jan. 20) meeting. The project applicant is casting us as the sole objectors to this project, so it's critical that you come to this meeting if you have concerns. This is a test of the Old North Design Guidelines. You are also welcome to stop by our house, and see for yourself what sort of impact the proposed project will have on our backyard, on our kitchen, on the Sixth Street public way, and on the general character of Old North. Sincerely and with good wishes, Wrye and Richard and Finn (rgb at cognitiveliberty.org) 704 Sixth Street 753-9662 P.S. Written comments to the City Council are less persuasive than in person comments at Tuesday?s meeting. So please come to the meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please e-mail your comments to the City Council. Their e-mail addresses are here: http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cmo/whoswho.cfm From ap_wallace at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 16:09:06 2004 From: ap_wallace at yahoo.com (Andrew P. Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:09:06 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] FW: 530 F Street Message-ID: <200401160010.i0G0A1uc017464@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> Old North Neighborhood Association, Below are the relevant excerpts taken from an email sent by Rhys Rowland regarding the proposed project at 530 F Street. > The project at 530 F Street has been > appealed and was scheduled to go to Council next Tuesday the 20th. The > item will be continued to the Council Meeting for Tuesday, January 27th. > The attached post card is what we are mailing. > > Rhys Rowland, Assistant Planner > City of Davis > Department of Planning and Building > 23 Russell Boulevard > Davis, CA 95616 > (530)757-5610 ext. #7244 > (530) 757- 5610 x7244 Best Regards, Andy Wallace -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Notice Post Card_1 for ONDNA.doc Type: application/msword Size: 340480 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Rhys Rowland.vcf URL: From rgb at cognitiveliberty.org Thu Jan 15 12:16:58 2004 From: rgb at cognitiveliberty.org (Richard Glen Boire) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:16:58 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 530 F Street at next Council Meeting Message-ID: Dear Old North Neighbors, Next Tuesday evening (1/20/2004) the City Council will hear the appeal of the 530 F Street Project, which seeks to construct a large two-story, 1122 sq. ft. house in the backyard of the existing home at that address. On December 17, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's project based on the following findings: "1. That the project would not enhance the character of the neighborhood and create negative impacts to the back yard area of the adjoining property to the north. 2. That the project does not provide a successful match to the existing architecture of the existing structure. 3. That the project would impact the solar access of the adjacent parcel to the north, especially in the winter morning and evening periods when the residences are used." We live at 704 Sixth Street, the home directly to the north of 530 F Street. We are opposed to the present plans. We are not opposed to development in general, nor are we opposed to a future plan for 530 F Street that minimizes the negative impact on our home and the surrounding core area neighborhood (as envisioned in the design guidelines). The fate of the project will be decided by the City Council on January 20. Wrye and I will be attending the meeting to restate our objections to the current project. Here are some of our objections. (We?re in the process of formalizing them vis a vis the Old North Design Guidelines): 1. The proposed structure has an FAR of 51.6% (20 percent over the maximum FAR of 40%). There is absolutely nothing about the project that compensates for this 20 percent excess. It?s an oversized building for such a small lot, and the FAR is an objective signal of its excess. 2. 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 in the mornings and afternoons. Those are precisely the times that we are home from work and often playing with Finn (our little boy) in the backyard. The currently proposed structure will also block just about all morning sun in our kitchen! 3. The proposed building will present a significantly altered profile from Sixth Street. It is not in character with the downtown neighborhood, nor is it even in character with the existing home at that address. (See Planning Commission finding 1 above). 4. If this home is allowed to go up as currently designed, it will later be used to justify additional oversized second structures in the neighborhood. Other people in R2 zoning wishing to construct a large second-structure in their back yard, will point to it as precedent. It violates a number of the Old North Design Guidelines We are also concerned that it will be used by the Co-Op to justify an oversized structure on the corner of Sixth and G. 4. The planning commission denied the application *without prejudice," meaning that our neighbor was, and remains, free to present a redesigned building for approval. But, rather than take into consideration the planning commission's concerns, the applicant is appealing the existing (denied) plan to the City Council. This is the applicant?s legal right of course, but we think it shows a complete inconsideration for our concerns (the immediate neighbor to the north, whose life style will be negatively impacted by the existing design) and for the impartial findings of the Planning Commission. Although we are upset by our neighbor's disregard for the negative impact their proposed project will have on our property and lifestyle, we do not oppose a redesigned project that strives to minimize the negative impact on our property and the neighborhood. But, our neighbor's appeal asks the City Council to approve the existing plan for the project, and (to repeat) makes no effort to minimize the harms that the Planning Commission has identified. If you are opposed to this sort of excessive second structure moving in to the back yard next you, please express your concerns to the City Council at the Tuesday (Jan. 20) meeting. The project applicant is casting us as the sole objectors to this project, so it's critical that you come to this meeting if you have concerns. This is a test of the Old North Design Guidelines. You are also welcome to stop by our house, and see for yourself what sort of impact the proposed project will have on our backyard, on our kitchen, on the Sixth Street public way, and on the general character of Old North. Sincerely and with good wishes, Wrye and Richard and Finn (rgb at cognitiveliberty.org) 704 Sixth Street 753-9662 P.S. Written comments to the City Council are less persuasive than in person comments at Tuesday?s meeting. So please come to the meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please e-mail your comments to the City Council. Their e-mail addresses are here: http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cmo/whoswho.cfm