>> we are now ready to call

item number 7. >> calling item seven, appeal number 10-047. the property is at 4209 24th street. this is appealing the nanaimo on april 28th, 2010, of the permit to alter a building, 3rd story vertical addition, one story horizontal addition to the front, two-story horizontal addition to the rear, to an existing single-family house. >> do we need to wait? >> no, we can start now. >> scott sanchez, planning department. this is the denial of an application that what is submitted in 2009.

the residential design team recommended minor changes. there is also the stairs at the rear of the building. as this relates to the project sponsor, the project sponsor respectfully refuse to make those decisions and the recommendation that the project be modified in those it the ways. it was a difficult decision for

the residential design team to make. there was a tremendous amount about reached that the project sponsor had done. there was low or no opposition to those projects. one thing that we do want to make clear and two proposals were said to the planning commission. i think that everyone would agree that the project should move forward. there is the project that was initially proposed, there was

the denial of the building permit but we would like to approve this with the planning commission's revision to allow them to build a project along those lines or if you believe the arguments that they put forward to you tonight, the request to overturn the department and make the request that they proposed. they have relatively minor changes. we would like to show those to you on the plans. these are the initial floor plans. the building here at the second and third levels would come up to the property line. they also have the stairs which extend into the rear yard. what the proposal of the design

team was to have the property line at the second and third level so that this is set back at 3 feet. also to reduce the length of the stairs as long as they are within the buildable envelope. that is the change that is before you this evening. the residential design team made this decision based on how we apply to the guidelines. we are tasked with implementing the guidelines and the residential districts and doing so consistently. other projects that would come in, we would have the 3 foot setback and have the stairs in the buildable area.

despite the fact that the adjacent property owner is supported in the project and there might be some public support testimony or testimony and support, that was a testimony that the planning commission supported the residential design team that the project sponsor disagrees with. we would like the commission to be the final party that decides this. >> if we were to -- that one with the stairs and exterior to the buildable envelope, did you say that would require aids variants -- require a variance?

>> yes, this must comply with the planning department's decision. if this board overturns the decision, then i would say it could be built under the authorize the variance. >> it could be? >> yes. that was in the final decision letter. we did have a decision. we were under the impression that the letter would be appealed to the board separately. we did not realize that until this evening. >> mr. sanchez, i cannot follow what you just said. >> we had issued the decision and we understood that the appellant was going to file the

letter separately. this was before the board. we are trying to review this and see if it would authorize something in the envelope of what they are requesting. it looks like what was approved was not the stairs but actually just their rear addition. the existing building does fall under the required regard. the stairs, that would be outside of the scope of the variance before you. >> they would need a new one? >> yes, they would. this has expired. what of the board could take action on would be related to the side sat back in town -- side setback. >> mr. sanchez, i would like to share my interpretation. the way this there engages the

deck in any of these situations still does not conform to the rear yard. >> the decision letter allows the inclusion of the approval. that is a permitted obstruction. under the proposal, -- >> this there is only moved back a couple of feet. >> the issue is the height of the couple of stairs. for these last few steps, there actually below the 3 ft. in height allowance. what was allowed was a variance for this. this does not require a

variance. this would allow the entire envelops and if you were to change, there's the proposal to have the side property line addition. >> this would allow the property line? >> yes, because that is within the buildable envelope. >> is the drawing that you put up indicating what has been approved? >> this is 2.2. there are a key plans, one that the private sponsors admitted. >> going back to something that you said, you thought there were going to appeal a variants but

they did not. >> we had issued the decision letter, that is why we have continued to this item before. i thought those items were calendar for this evening. only before this meeting did realize this was the case. >> this was granted but not to allow the full rearguard edition. circling back to what was said, if this board and the planning

decision, they would have to go back for another variance because that was dependent upon the boards of holding? >> yes, this is a request on the letter or they could file for a new variantce. what you could act upon this evening would be the side decision. >> we will hear from the appellants now. >> good evening. thank you for allowing us to appeal the ruling in march.

i would like to explain why we feel that the strict application of the residential design committee is not the best decision for our neighbors. when we purchased our property, we were aware of this at the rear yard of our locked. as the plans of all to the affected unit of the housing, the increase total square footage resulted in pressure on the layout and design. we would like to mention that the house as submitted had the support of many of our neighbors. many of which were against it but we were able to convince them through our neighborhood outreach.

the art exit of the house was on the east side but due to the added square footage is no longer possible. we move to the exit to the house. our children are very active for us -- this is very active for us. we need to move the air access to the side of the house. this is not either by us or the neighbor.

we're not able to maintain the exit on the east side of the house. the planning department's recommendations will not reduce the shadow on the neighboring towns as there are no shadows. we would like to conclude that no one be negatively affected. there is something that we could implement, however it reduces

the usable space in the downstairs unit. we would like to have some extra privacy from our gardens. using state of the art principles we feel we're making substantial, beneficial contributions to the neighborhood. we are hoping to build a highly functional house for us.

>> solo. -- hello. the request for the setback on the second and third floors, we're asking for a setback as this is a similar property right as suggested by other properties in the same class. you can see that this contains a combination of light wells and set back to provide relief to the yard. we suggested changes to the project.

here is how it went substantially into the rear yard setback. the request for locating the back stairs with a footprint was the second item. we're asking for them to be pulled up from the said act as proposed. this is a good solution for any person who do is against the property, present or future. we feel that this was a likely situation as a professional and try any future property owner is

due to the fish bowl-like the fact that the open space has on the rear yard of diamond street. this is an up slope from here as you head up 24th. all of the rear yards are essentially fishbowls. this their walls extending out provides desired privacy to this current owner and we believe to any future owners. thank you. i'm happy to address any further questions. >> is this for sale? >> no, we just feel that -- i have been practicing architecture since 1990 and we are committed to the city. we find that the residential design guidelines have been of great benefit to help us understand the greater good that

we are providing when we design the individual house. we feel that we have the responsibility of the architect to not only address request of that particular neighbor but also what would anyone who might move there in the future have to say about it? >> are you, listen to of what the acting zoning administrator said in his preamble? >> we are not, that was then known to us. we are unaware that that was not -- >> the reason why we were continuing from the prior

hearing that we reschedule for back in june was it turned out that the various letter was not issued in time. we thought there was works in the process. it was our understanding that there was a personnel change. in the original guidance that we received was to simply appeal the two modifications that were suggested by the board. at that point, we were not advised that we would appeal the variants. it was probably a lack of communication that we did not fully understand and maybe it just looked a little bit different. there would have been a definite appeal. we are not fully clear on what this all means. m