We've been nagging the City's Code Team to go over our modeled scenarios for several weeks now. Thanks to some pressure from Council Member Alison Alter, that finally happened this week. We submitted detailed breakdowns of the scenarios with site plans and elevations to the team for their review, and yesterday we talked through all of them in a lengthy meeting.
The result: Three of our models needed minor corrections to comply with the draft code. Neither impacted the overall size, scale, square footage or relative affordability of the scenarios.
Here's what we had to change:
R2A/R2B:
The draft code allows 30' of side roof gable above the 25' plate height. We needed to slide the rear unit toward the center of the lot by 5', then add two tiny dog-ear notches in the gable on the front unit to make it conform to the rule.
RM1:
Our rooftop stair enclosures needed a roof tweak (cut to conform to the slope of the stair). Also, they felt that our rooftop party lights constituted a structure that would exceed the height exceptions. We removed them, but the takeaway here is that they're 100% cool with the gigantic luxury condo building sitting 5' from the neighboring single family property, but they absolutely will not stand for any damned party lights. Cool, cool.
R2B "Preservation Incentive" model:
Same story on stair enclosures for roof decks. We lopped off the corners. Nothing else changes.
That's all, folks. Next time someone tells you our models are "fake news" or "take liberties", point them here. These models are now vetted by the team that wrote the code draft.
The result: Three of our models needed minor corrections to comply with the draft code. Neither impacted the overall size, scale, square footage or relative affordability of the scenarios.
Here's what we had to change:
R2A/R2B:
The draft code allows 30' of side roof gable above the 25' plate height. We needed to slide the rear unit toward the center of the lot by 5', then add two tiny dog-ear notches in the gable on the front unit to make it conform to the rule.
 |
| Modified R2A/R2B Duplex model 11-7 |
RM1:
Our rooftop stair enclosures needed a roof tweak (cut to conform to the slope of the stair). Also, they felt that our rooftop party lights constituted a structure that would exceed the height exceptions. We removed them, but the takeaway here is that they're 100% cool with the gigantic luxury condo building sitting 5' from the neighboring single family property, but they absolutely will not stand for any damned party lights. Cool, cool.
 |
| Modified RM1 model 11-7 |
Same story on stair enclosures for roof decks. We lopped off the corners. Nothing else changes.
 |
| R2A/R2B "preservation incentive" model, with stair enclosures modified to comply with code. |
That's all, folks. Next time someone tells you our models are "fake news" or "take liberties", point them here. These models are now vetted by the team that wrote the code draft.