thank you for your time and i asked you to consider this. >> thank you. >> stephen. marsha. brian. francis. >> good evening, commissioners. i live a few doors down from the project site. i have lived there the past five years. i have walked down eidtdith street just about every day. the primary complaint i have heard here is one of bulk. i find those comments to be disingenuous. if you look at the profiles, the size of the building is faring much in keeping, regardless of

the number of stories that are present, it is in keeping with the number -- size of the buildings that have been developed. this is the last small building on that side of the street to be developed. i think they're being penalized to be the last. i find it unfair and inappropriate. i would like to -- for the project to go ahead as designed. >> patrick, vicki, theodore brown. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is elmer. i am glad to be here to speak for my friend. i have been a neighbor since 1985 at 570 and across the

street. i have followed this project since its inception. i watched the many times that ms. bernhard and family, the many changes that have had to take place and the heartache it has cause for them. i am here in support of the project. the things i have heard about the wonderful parties and so forth in the neighborhood is true. unfortunately, vicki is not here right now. she gives wonderful parties. i have been too wonderful party -- party is acting bernard's house.

i wish we could go with my other neighbor's that i have not met. i have seen them and try to speak to them on the street. i hope that this project can go forward. i hope that our neighbors can be what it is supposed to be. good evening, miss president and members of the commission. i am an architect. one thing to want to do is to thank our opposition. they have really been great people. we have sat down and had many meetings with them. i think we are still all good friends. we got along. we did not agree on everything. we had some good meetings. people expressed what they felt. i would like to look at the elevation on edith street.

if you could bring this on the screen, this building is a 35- foot building. this building is 36. this building is 40, which is our proposal. this is 40. this is 35. this is 34. if you look at what this does to the street, it is actually a very nice facade. right now, it breaks up and goes down to atwo stories. the planning department worked very hard with us. 18 different revisions going over up -- eight different revisions going over el lining up facades to make this thing fit with the neighborhood. the planning department, i am

really impressed with, their ability to bring up solutions that we had not thought about. to be able to tinker with things. these two facades match up. this gives them a corner window looking out here. the whole thing is integrated in a lace work character. it is not so obvious when you look at the plans. i have never done a project that was so thoroughly research. we hope that we can move on with this and have parties with the neighbors and move on. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsored? seeing none. the hdre requestor gets their

time. >> thank you, commissioners. williams on behalf of the neighbors. there are two units in the existing building. there are two small, affordable, currently rent- controlled units in this building. there will be three at non-rent- controlled condominiums. this building is not consistent with what is there. it does not matter whether the drawings are in scale. you have heard albert said over and over again similar height. this building is going to be taller than the other buildings except for the one exception next door.

you look across the street. all of the buildings across the street are victorian or edwardian. they are two stories tall. the black is the inconsistency. there are four buildings with four unoccupied floors at 40 feet. that is what they want to build. they are saying it is the norm on the street. they're saying that the zoning administrator and all of the senior planners caved in to public opinion. that is the theory as to why there was to shift and change in the opinion about what constitutes the neighbor of this -- constitutes the best they bread. if they did, it would have been the first time. following the rules. they mentioned how they followed the rules. my presentation was about how

the rules were ignored and that there was an end run around the process. the cap guidelines are not being followed. thank you. >> hello again. i just wanted to address about the height that she was talking about. there are five levels. he did not say to you that there will be rooftop features and a penthouse on top of that. nobody on our block house that. i really appreciate all of the people coming in and supporting this. how many of those people are from this neighborhood? i am speaking on behalf of 120 residents. they actually live there. they are actual residence. they are not people from the street. they are not people from the

park. there is the issue about having a home that the family wants to live there. if you see this map, there are only three buildings. they sit between two alleys. they can live together. they have three buildings. thank you very much. i am talking on behalf of the neighbors. >> thank you, commissioners. i wanted to clear up, i started with the three and four-story buildings. the green areas are gardens on the subject property on the

corner of edgardo, on the rear corner of one of the edith street neighbors. then there are two-story buildings that our housing. some of those buildings -- it shows the elevation of the building. this was a 70-foot wide street or a 90-foot white st. that would be a good way to appreciate the height as they come up the hill and appreciate the height as the health plans out. in a 17.5-foot alley, when will never have that view. it is an abstraction of a reality that one can never appreciate. i would go back to what we had discussed. the neighbors proposal is to

allow a two-story of variance proportion in the back. if they would like to apply for such a variance, a third story that is co-complying, meaning they have a rear yard that meets the 25%, this does not meet the cap guidelines. he said that it does -- it did meet the it cap guidelines. this is a 15-degree setback. even with the neighbors proposal, there are pieces of the buildings that do not meet the cap guidelines. it is such a better building. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> albert.

i want to say that we are delighted that we are keeping and maintaining the open space and backyard. so often, i hear very insist paving over backyards. what mr. butler was just saying was talking about bringing in and paving over the entire site and moving back. i do not think that is a good solution. there are two existing trees down there. we're talking about being green and having good solutions. building above an existing structure is a much better alternative. in terms of the height, i want to reiterate the top unit. it nestles between these guys banged -- guys. this has between the top unit.

staff has done a good job helping us find the solution. i want to commend them for bringing this here today. i typically like to stick to the facts and not correct people. mr. williams as saying that this is two units. it is actually a single-family unit. i want to make sure that we all know that. there are plenty of roof decks around the area and tall buildings. there are a lot of tall buildings. a lot of people enjoy going up on their roofs. thank you for the consideration. >> the public hearing is closed. >> thank you. this almost goes back to when i was first on the commission. not quite. 2005 i believe. it is quite a ways back. that was quite a different

project. that was quick. i will have to say that i do, to some degree, agree with the analogy of the missing tooth. a tooth that brought about the missing troops. most people would prefer have some of a similar alliance. i think the design is quite a bit better than was the case in the past. i am not a big fan of modern architecture, but i think this is contemporary but tastefully done. this makes it contemporary to the rest of the neighborhood. i do not think anybody here is a big fan, but hopefully someone in the room was not the person who belted or on it, but i do not think it is an attractive buildings, -- who built it, but

this one is. if there are setbacks, the setbacks are as they should be. we do gain three units were there is one unit, but there have been changes that have been noted. as was pointed out, the top unit was 1800 square feet, which is about as small as you are going to get, so i think you are going to get a good job with that.

in terms of height, it is slightly taller than the one side of it and somewhat shorter to the other side of it. they did the top units, and this survey has been presented. about a third is the low 40, but that goes on to some larger street. it does tell you about the neighborhood. i think how it relates are

probably the most important part of the building. it does not fit in as well, so i am in favor of the project. i think the rear yard is probably an important. it think there is an alternate design also, we are taught that we keep the top unit smaller, and we make things step down to maximize the sun exposure, and some of having things ago of a way out to the street for all the way to the rear yard. i think those are important things to note, so i would generally be supportive. we will see what the other commissioners have to say if you're a good >> i am generally

in accepting of the staff analysis from some cover 29 of 2006, and it is intriguing this has gone through a number of internal reviews and there have been varying results of those reviews. maybe some were not on the same in building of some that had similar heights, and i took this morning and spent little time walking both alleys. i think they are great. they're the kind of thing that would never happen now in our plant communities.

those outlays would -- what would happen is we tended to plan it so well, and as was pointed out, you have basically buildings in the backyard areas, and that would never happen today. given that, i think lowering the height and expanding the building is keeping with development pattern.

one alternative is to expand into the backyard. i am particularly in favor of exploring the possibility of expanding the building into the backyard. >> is that a motion? >> i would like to make it a motion. >> i also agree with the analysis. they're particularly concerned with the building as being unfortunate. i cannot believe you can do those savings.

it is a 40-foot side yard, so i would support the analysis. >> i am not exactly sure, but it appears as though the higher buildings. >> the properties are narrow. >> the other thing i would like to point out, you could have a three-story building, and just

taking the floor off, i think makes it a little less desirable in a lot of ways, and i do not know if that would be the best solution. probably a better one would be to try to minimize the height for a couple feet. i do not know if that could be done. i am sure that things have been looked at, and 40 feet is as low as you are going to be able to make that theory does -- to make that. comissioner borden: i support the motion. i do not know the exact answer. i think it needs every design to make it the appropriate height. it looks kind of bizarre, so i

think there would have to be a redesign done peering ahead -- redesign done. could you ever design anything in a three story plan? no. >> no, we did not. >> the hard thing is i do not think we are in a position to figure of the answer today, because i think the result is not necessarily what we want. i do not know if we should continue it for the design to come back, but i think it is too arbitrary to not specify the rest of it, and i think the best use would be to continue the project with the instructions unless we can have a new

building to look at whatever it is. we need to scope this out more and give them direction. i do comissioner antonini: not know if that was a motion. -- i do not know if that was a motion. >> we are just asking for clarity. >> if we word soon, but the design that might incorporate the amount of floors you need? >> on my own house -- we could reduce the height of this to 38

feet and accommodate the same amount of units and maintain the space. >> that would be something i would like to see. >> i know we could do that, because i just did it. >> the motion on the floor is to reduce it. that is what i heard. everything wait one second. we're trying to get discussion so we can get to a place where if there is a motion, it is one that provides clear instruction to staff. >> if we are trying to avoid using the word floor but talk about height, we are talking about a substantial reduction, not 2 feet. >> it would be very helpful if

you could articulate where that is. the building is 40 feet now. are you saying it should be 30 feet? >> 30 by 32. >> we're also saying they can expand the envelope. to accommodate additional square footage. >> basically, we are willing to get rid of the rear yard and come back. >> as i understand, it is to reduce it with the understanding you would recommend a rear yard variants to accommodate the square foot? some additional square foot? >> yes.

price if you could comment on to the rigid comment as to the feasibility of -- if you could comment as to the feasibility. >> they have come up with a solution that we are very close to being able to accept this and saving the neighbors one big window, stepping its down, there is 3 feet they want us to stick back, which is not the acceptable to us, but we would like a 33-foot structure to match the height next door, and i think if we do that, we are there. >> are you going to go 33 on

that motion? >> that is all right. comissioner moore: i wanted to reflect on what you said. it concerned me there was an expression of distrust in the department. we are a revolving door. some of us make it to eight years, but some of its has a common vision with the public trust, and while they often do not agree with mr. williams, i think it is well-taken, and i have heard from quite a few people who have reasonable

efforts to really get across the message. i think it should instill a certain amount of trust in you. i am a little surprised that the department really changed its basic position on it. i do not believe this particular building is an exceptionally good building. it is rather bulky, and it is quite civilized but clear. i want to express my hope that should we come to a situation like this again there will be a little bit more interaction between the commission or educating the