cory teague, planning department. good evening, commissioners. the case on 1750 alabama, i wasn't here for the last hearing, but i did want the entire video. obviously, it's clear the family who lives here has specific needs that they're trying to fulfill, and they're not trying to thwart that, all things being equal. the applicant both outlined some of the changes that he have made. they did take the ground floor area and propose that to convert that to a proposed a.d.u. i think it is helpful because it is changing the land use context that's being proposed, because that would ensure in the future that it is two separate units as compared to two significant rooms but only one single unit. the removal of the roof overhang and the rear trell i say did a lot to bring the perceived mass down and deal with some real issues of shading from those elements. i think also the overall ceiling height which drops the height of the building overall, i'll point out that that is an amendment to the plans that does reduce the mass, a

cory teague again for the planning department. i will assure you the acting zoning administrator at that time did not go out on a limb by his or herself to make that determination. i can assure you that the full resources of the department and the city were consulted to make that determination. a lot of conversations about the nuances of what the original propertiener was, but all we have is the record. if you look at the original variance letter from 1970 and why it's being provided it talks in have you flowery language that it would be an open space open to the tenants of the buildings, and it was going to be this kind of great open space, natural plaza for the community. that did not happen. the development context that exists now is very different than what happened then. i would disagree with the appellant, again, that we didn't address the issue raised about parking and why no one's talking about it. our brief directly addresses their question in their brief about the parking and how it was used in the justification of the v

print management or permit manager, kenny wong, inspector with the department of public health, cory teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department and court -- planning commission, bernie curran, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and jillian gillett and leo maceo. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request to turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices that they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card when y

cory teague, zoning administrator. the last time we had a project like this, you did the same thing, asked me to go first. i was wondering if you were going to do that again. >> commissioner richards: if he didn't, i was. >> no, this was interesting. the variance and the d.r. are asking us to look at it, two different bodies, looking for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in two different ways. here there's an argument being made that there's not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because the lot was split, it was developed a long time ago this way. it already exists, and because it was developed that way so long ago before many of the code requirements we have in place now exist, and considering the topography, i think there are some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that that could create some practical difficulties in relations to hardship with regard to reasonable increases in the home. having said that, where i would kick it back to you guys to discuss it a

cory teague from the planning department. this is an interesting case. i know that you have three lengthy detailed briefs that were submitted. i really do hope that you read them all. i'm not going to even be able to come close to address everything that was raised. i would disagree with the appellant's statements that the decision letter and the briefs submitted by the planning department do not address any of the issues raised. i feel like they address all the issues that have been raised. the variance decision letter was more detailed and lengthier than a typical variation letter precisely for this reason because it is a complicated situation. i will just try to give a little bit of background and information and will definitely be available for any questions you may have and try to cover as much under rebuttal as i can. the proper here is 898 north street. it's currently zoned c-2 in a 40-x height and zone district. it's a multiunit residential building that fronts only on north street which is not part of this proposal. as was discussed originally,

cory teague, planning department. i agree it would be helpful to have the findings drafted, and then, specifically, it is at the discretion of the board if you would choose to grant the variance for the plans that were part of the deny variance or if you are approving the plans that have been amended to this point and been submitted to you for this hearing tonight. >> president fung: well, the findings would be based upon the amended drawings that they submitted, and it will be produced by the project sponsor. >> can i just ask a question. so if the variance is approved and they have to go and get their site permit and all that stuff, would their plans possibly changed and we'll be finding ourselves back here again because the plans have change index some significant way or some minuscule way? >> correct. the plans cannot change the variance because that's the only thing that's being approved is the variance themselves. plans start to change when you're having to deal with building code and fire code and some of these