Item 2 - Exhibit 26 - Letter of Justification - ArchitectJustification In Design Based on Comisssion Meeting on 01/09/2019
Having heard the January 9th Planning Commission’s summary architect decides to move on
with owner’s understanding that the size and the massing of the house are bound to be
downsized in terms of square footage & volumes presented.
In order to quickly grasp the changes between those commented by Planning Commission
and the modified version presented in front of you this evening the following pages would
deliver you very meaningful aspects as for the size & massing of the house.
It is my true belief that those revised architectural plans hereafter do target what these
required by Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) with exception of the
placement of garage, which the Planning Commission has deemed it is one of the reasonable
exception for this particular design case from the onset of the project review.
Contents on pages herein are listed as follows;
P-1: Footprints versus LRDA
P-2: Comparison of Lo-Level Plans
P-3: Comparison of Mid-Level Plans
P-4: Comparison of Hi-Level Plans
P-5: Comparison of Building Elevations, West View
P-6: Comparison of Building Elevation, South View
It is worth to mention here that exterior appearances have been worked out agreeably amid
Planning Staff, Peer Architect and Project Architect that an eclectic Spanish style is reached
ultimately.
Prior to flipping into the next page there is the third point in relation with quantity of earth
cut it should be addressed.
It is needless to say that the cut must be decreased accordingly after the downsized-design on
house area & volume. The Engineer has also provided us a factual number that is about 200
cubic yards of dirt less after the commission’s comments, i.e. 2000 CY prior and 1800 CY now.
Be advised that for the details of the earth earthwork refer to revised engineering plans.
EXHIBIT 26
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank