work from home and does need a separate space to be able to execute that work. as anybody who lives with children knows, working from home with children in the house can be very distracting. in addition, his independent life is very important for his personal daily rituals. he already mentioned the embarrassing incident with bringing his wife's shirt instead of his own. just having his own space as far as closet space, not having to share a restaurant with four people in one house, -- nunnelee to share a bathroom with four people in one house, will make a difference to him. does not create a liability based on a small amount of space for them to function. the neighborhood they are proposing to move into is great.

i walk a dog in that area every day. they are very aware of it from living around the corner. in my opinion, the proposed remodel is not excessive. it is necessary in order to continue daily life. president olague: thank you. are there additional speakers? >> jeremy paul in support of the project sponsor. i would like to point out that both of the adjacent property owners, both of the dr requestors facebook tonight, both of the horizontal additions at the rear of their property. this is from the site design checklist prepared by the planning department. you can see the department meticulously reviewed this application and found that it had minimize its impact on the light and air of the adjacent properties. we did some studies, shadows

studies, which provided to the -- which we provided to the dr requesstors. they told us they were inadequate. there is impact. there is no doubt that at the winter solstice, when the sun is to the south at its most, there is impact. however, the house to the south is higher than we are and extends as far as we do. there is a large tree in the backyard of the robertsons' that provides a lot of shade. this is the direction that the view goes from these houses. it goes to the east. it does not go to the south. this is the view from robertson's home. that tree is what they see when they look from their upper deck, from their middle deck. the will see our structure when

they looked directly south, as does the current building to the north. if you will look at these burials -- aerials, you see how this block papers. this house was designed in specific response to that paper. you can see the resident design guidelines that address it in this way. the person who said this might be a mcmansion has a much larger house than this one. president olague: are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> i have lived in the neighborhood for 15 years. i cannot even tell you how many times i have ridden my bike or walk up and down that street. i cannot tell you how many times i have been a different houses that have turned over over the past 15 years. the house as it is now is more

inconsistent with the neighborhood than what they are proposing. the addition is being characterized as a manchin -- as a mcmansion. that is absurd. as for the green space, i have been in backyards down there. the backyard is nice. they are all large. the code is 25% remaining backyard space. it would still feel enormous in context of that space. there is a lot of sun. it is on a sloping hill. i saw the shadow studies in december when there were put up. i did not feel like there were impacting. there is some impact. whenever you build, there is a point to be an impact. but to say it is as negative as i am hearing today is an overstatement by far. i support the project. president olague: thank you. additional speakers? seeing none, dr requestors, you

each have two minutes for rebuttal. >> on behalf of the robertsons, i would like to take more than two minutes since the other side took 50 minutes on their presentation. the couple of things to address. at the end of 5 minutes, we were trying to describe the alterations with would find satisfactory. i want to point out on the overhead that at the rear is a slight reduction in the size of the family room in the back to make it more consistent with the average of the rares of the two and adjacent buildings. it would still allow a large family room to be made even larger if the rooms behind it were adjusted somewhat. i really wanted to talk about the variance and the request to raise the house 18 inches. the request came to raise the

back of the house 18 inches to make the deck level with the kitchen. we certainly appreciate the need for that. the handicap makes that an important issue. but they want to raise the entire house 18 inches. we do not think the grounds for a variance have been met. variance can only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances that create an undue hardship. perhaps most importantly, it is not necessary to preserve a substantial property. the sponsors say it is necessary to make the garage accessible because they would prefer a less of a slope on the ramp to the garage. there is a fairly simple way for them to have a 25% slope to get into the garage to make the grosz more usable without

raising the has 18 inches. you can see in this diagram that simply by inserting the ramp further into the house that a 25% slope can be achieved and the floor of the existing garage lowered somewhat. we would urge the zoning administrator to consider that. president olague: thank you. we will call you up if we have questions. second dr requestor, you have two minutes. >> i said most of what i had to say. just what we are asking is a modest pullback from the proposed plan, maybe a couple of feet would make a big difference, certainly coming to the edge of our house or even the average of the two houses. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. on behalf of john dibenedetti

and his family, we have filed a request for accommodation in the americans with disabilities act so he can get the vehicle into his garage. it is steeply sloped. it will require a trench brain. it continues to the midpoint of the grosz. it is completely impossible to pull a car in. the doors themselves fold in order to open. the extension to the rear maintains the same percentage of lot coverage enjoyed by the robertsons' in the house to the north. we have a tapering block. this is a good response to a tapering block. we have a building that is stepping down to the rear and putting the mass the toward the rear. we are not changing the facade significantly. they are making every attempt to maintain the historic family --

historic fabric of the house. the need to raise the house is to keep it at this floor level from front to back. as he goes to his house, it is important that he be able to navigate without a cane. if there is a change in floor level, it is a dangerous thing for him. if somebody leaves a pillow on the floor or a jacket out, this is a tripping hazard for their dead. a family room downstairs is important to this family. the possibility of altering this and pulling back the rear projection will benefit the adjacent neighbors in the most minor way. they are not going to suddenly see something they do not already see or will not see with this there. the view is in a different direction.

thank you we are asking you to take dr and approve. president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: the most important thing to look that is the picture that was provided which shows the north and south texas and looks down at the open space. i will tell you why in a minute. as far as i am concerned, i see no problem. there was some testimony of a question of raising the height. i do not see any problem with that. this is making the garage accessible. i do not see where it would have any impact on the neighbors, even the neighbors to the north, which are the most impacted, by raising the height. certainly, it has been pointed out there is a reason for the size of this. there are important reasons why certain rooms have to have certain sizes. it is also important that the levels all be flat for access

reasons, and that was well established. another comment that i thought was very important is sunlight is at a premium. i am familiar with the street. i know what it is like. in looking at the picture, what you are doing -- the homes there and do not face due east, but they face sort of southeast slightly. the area that would be most impacted would probably be the lower floor of the house which is the robertsons' house and the first or second houses on the block. the ones to the south, of course, said higher and would not be impacted at all, as far as i can see. i think i heard from mr. vettle -- i would ask about making the lower floor a little bit not so deep. mr. paul, maybe you could react

to that. i am not saying that is necessarily anything i wanted to propose, but that would be fine if you want to answer that. >> we have had many discussions with the neighbors. it has always been a question of what would make the specter for you. it was always either lower the first partition so we can see over it, or take 11 feet off so it is not there. we thought if we did pull it back, we did not see how that would make any difference to them. instead, we went with the planning department proposal, which was to pull it to the side. we thought that would give them a better corridor for light. we have done studies to show that for most of the year, from spring to fall, it has no effect

on their light, surprisingly, because we are facing slightly south. the sun is coming at a nice angle for those houses. they also have a big tree that shades there are quite a bit already. commissioner antonini: i am going by what i can see without actually having visited the rear yard to see exactly where the sun is coming from. you are saying even a small cut on the family room would be somewhat of a hardship? >> it would make a big difference to us. we have made it a little smaller for them on the side, thinking that would benefit more than pulling it back from the rear.

>> my request is to pick up some square footage but pull it back in the rear, which will make it much more beneficial for the robinsons to have. we would not be adverse to them going back to a 3 foot setback rather than a 5 foot setback if the building can be pulled back in the rear. 7.5 feet is our request. commissioner antonini: that gives me some perspective. i will see what the other commissioners have to say on this. commissioner sugaya: are we talking about 7 feet on the ground floor, first floor?

there was a discussion of averaging and it does not apply in this zoning district. however, we have applied it in other zoning districts. perhaps that could give me some reasons why it is in applicable here, given the separation between these buildings is so slight. >> the rule of averaging is established in section 134 to allow a decrease in the requirement for the rear yard. in a case where you have a 45% requirement, the can reduce the requirement by averaging -- they

are not in coaching the record rear yard space. -- they are not encroaching the rear yard space. they are living 32% as open space, above and beyond the 25% requirement. president olague: we have no commissioner names up and i think we need a motion, if someone is ready to make one. commissioner antonini: mr. paul, could i ask a question? there was a suggestion made. it looks as though what you have done is you have increased the side set back from 3 feet to 5 feet. the dr representative is saying they would prefer to have some of that off the back then trade them for the smaller side set back. do you have any feeling about that? >> only that the amount of

production of the projection should be proportional to the amount of setback. it is important to keep in mind that this lot is longer than the adjacent lot. we actually are meeting the averaging, based on where their rear lot line is. commissioner antonini: i understand all that. i understand the fact that 32% open rear space -- it is just a question of what little additional light might be let in. it is 2 feet off the back and 2 feet off the side. i think it is a fair trade. if that is ok with your -- the project sponsor, i might propose making that change. i will see what the other commissioners have to say. i think it might make a slightly larger impact for the dr requestor than having the side setback. president olague: i want to remind commissioners that we have a 6:00 time-certain item

and crowds of people in the hallway. if we could move along with this item, it would be fantastic. vice president miguel: i think raising the house 18 inches is necessary. i have seen that grosz and walked that slope. it is -- i have seen that garage and walked that slow. it is untenable to drive in. it was a bad design in the first place. i think the planning department has done a good job on this. i think considering everything that has been said that it has been dealt with quite well. i would move that we take dr and approve the project with the department's modifications. commissioner moore: i would like to ask -- i would like to ask mr. gass perhaps to step up to the lectern and ask him,

irrespective of the neighbor wanting a specific set back -- and have you tried to consider it in a very minimal way reducing the death of any of the rooms which lead to what i think it's a very large home, which indeed causes some form of impact with adjoining neighborhoods -- with adjoining neighbors? there is no real rule, but i am asking you as an architect. i see a lot of storage space. i see a lot of lining up of pictures. this is not a discussion that this house needs very specific attention to clear passage, a generous ability for the applicant to live with more room and more orderly space. i am asking you as an architect,

as an attempt been made to size it? this home for a single family is very large. >> we have already pulled it back 1 foot and pulled it back from the side property line another 1 foot 4. the upper floor i believe it leaves a 42% rare yard, slightly over the 45% maximum rear yard requirement. we did do some juggling. one of the things that affects the neighborhood -- the stairs have to go behind the garage in

an area that is existing where we can go out to the property line. the front door needs to be maintained, and the central corridor. there is a certain depth for the stairs. it sets of circulation in the house. commissioner moore: does that answer questions for you about sizing and when your dimensions going in an east-west direction? commissioner antonini: i have talked to the project sponsor's representative and it sounded like the dr requestor wanted another addition, but i am comfortable with 2 ft. 4 2 feet.

>> if that is the desire of the commission. you might think about asking them to move the spiral staircase to the south a bit, so it is not right in the corner. i think that would be helpful. commissioner antonini: project architect, what do you think about that spiral staircase? >> you could have a slope at the kitchen door. commissioner antonini: you do not want to have to avoid the staircase to get up to the back. >> the dec is only 9 ft. 6 feet.

one of the reasons for the depth of the first floor is to have a usable? space adjacent to the kitchen -- a useable deck space adjacent to the kitchen and family room. i am talking about the deck on top of the family room. commissioner antonini: i see. it would be wider, but it will not be as deep. >> it makes it relatively unusable as an outburst the base -- as outdoor space. commissioner sugaya: it seems we are reaching some kind of consensus. i will go ahead and make a motion to take dr and approve the project with a 2 ft. set back from the current proposal in the rear, regaining 2 feet to the side, and moving the spiral staircase to the south. president olague: do you want to

also include the steps recommendations? commissioner sugaya: yes. >> that recommendation actually is contradictory to staff recommendation. i would also like to have clarification on the height. the height is fine so you do not need a reduction on the height? president olague: that is right. sorry about that. we seem to have a motion. is there a second? commissioner moore: i would like to have commissioner sugaya rephrase the motion. commissioner sugaya: i think we're just taking out the stuff modification. >> for clarity, you are removing the staff modification. you're putting back the 2 feet on this side said beck, but you're reducing the rear pop out by two feet, and the spiral

staircase which shift to the south. commissioner antonini: i do not know if that is doable. president olague: i am just trying to get a -- did you hear that? 6 feet from the property line. >> the spiral staircase is being -- commissioner antonini: repositioned 6 feet from the property line. commissioner sugaya: i do not want to use the property line. i want to use the deck itself. president olague: the architect,

if you could come to the microphone. commissioner sugaya: i guess 6 feet from the property line is about 2 feet from where it is now. >> i believe it is 5 feet back from the property line. commissioner sugaya: i am talking about moving it completely to the other side of the deck. >> the new are crossing over a -- then you are crossing over a deck two feet narrower, and we have a circulation cuts reducing the usable area in terms of ada accessibility for my client. you have pretty much destroyed the deck by moving it to the other side. that from a usability point of view would not be highly desirable. commissioner sugaya: how far to

move it to the celotex -- how far do you want to move it? if he is only going to move a foot, you might as well keep it where it is. >> i think there is not much that would be accomplished. commissioner antonini: i think we are getting into privacy issues that are not an impact on the adjacent neighbor so much as the earlier things we have talked and -- we have talked about. leave that out. >> the staff recommendation also included modifications on the

second and third floor. i hope you keep those modifications. thus did help us. the project's sponsors will do them. it is a combination of the steps recommendation -- of the staff recommendation on the second and third floor and this recommendation on the first floor. >> one of the things we did on the third floor was to move the deck back from the property line from 3 feet to 5 feet. if we move the lower floor deck 3 feet from the property line, we will have a post coming down to the middle of the deck. those are, together in accomplishing what we are trying to do. -- those are tied together in accomplishing what we are trying to do. on the lower deck, by moving it back, we would use entirely open railing, lowering the solid pace

in -- lowering the solid railing 2.5 feet from where it was. commissioner antonini: is it possible to do the modifications the staff has arrived on with the only changes being trading the depth of the deck by two feet -- not the deck. the family room. >> the family room could be reduced two feet in depth. the impact would be more significant to the deck, making it significantly less usable. commissioner sugaya: that is assuming the current configuration of the house itself stays the way it is. >> excuse me, commissioner. president olague: we have a motion.