variance. it's a variance. it isn't somebody impossible. the reason to have a variance is to give somebody a chance to do something that might not normally be given. thank you very much for your attention after a long day. >> thank you. any other speakers in support of the project? okay. dr request or you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> we all want to go home. >> i will try to be brief. my name is keith daveey. i think it fair to say we've worked with the property owner and we mails there is records of that and we've been to the package, we've been to the variance hearing. we don't live there. okay, that's fine, but we've been on the property since

1957. we provide affordable housing to tenants for 30 plus years. i hear a lot of character witnesses for nadine and i don't know her. i'm sure she's a fine person, but i hope you add in your decision in looking at the people that are affected by this and financially affected or own property in the neighborhood and the way their comments are heavier than character witness. that's all i have to say. thank you very much for your attention. >> okay. project sponsor you have two minutes rebuttal if you like. >> thank you. as you saw this

project is well within the city code. i believe that our city codes an our city staff has been very effective in guiding me and i find architecture and legal advice is money well spent because it allowed me to follow the application and the neighborhood process. i'm happy to have their support and the support of the design committee today. this is a costly process of a homeowner. and $50,000 into this. this project will allow our family to remain together to live together and work together in the city. let's encourage city growth today and approve this project.

with that the public hearing is closed and opening up to staff for comments and questions. i see that administrator sanchez. >> i just want to speak briefly about how we are here and why we are here. we spoke about this earlier variance in december and the same amount of public turnout expressing concern about the project and it was largely to the privacy issues and the balance -- balconies and the addition and

making some modifications to reducing the impacts and the size of balconies and hoping that would result in addressing all the neighbors concerns and it did not, there is no concerns even with the changes that they have made and that's why they have the discretionary request and even though the project is complying, doesn't require a variance so that would be before you anyway. they no longer require a variance for that 4th floor addition which i did have concerns about because what was encroaching on the yard was a large sitting room and master

bedroom and it wasn't adding to the number of bedrooms in the project and that has been addressed and now we are left with the balconies. while the plans in the package don't appear to reflect the devised deck which the project sponsor showed, i think it's a larger deck on the plans. i think what they have done in reducing the size of the balconies is addressing the concerns. regardless of these balconies there or not you are still going to have these large windows. these privacy issues are not going to be addressed by the balconies. the stairs are larger than the initial proposal. they initially had

spiral stairs and now they have gone to a full stand stair and it seems to the neighbors concern, it wasn't so much about the stairs, much about the balconies and the privacy issues with that. i'm satisfied with the changes they have made, not within the packet, but with the project sponsor put on the overhead that reducing the balconies depth and the rhythm width would be no wider and this the windows and the discussion upon variance and variance. the building was constructed in 1949 and existing legal non-compliance structure. i don't see a history of other variances for this project. i think this it is first one. it is a fairly unique shop and you will see triangular shape law.

it's also topography to the southern corner on the right angel of the property. so, it does have some unique lot situations there as well. thank. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you, for the members of the public, i appreciate all the comments. just want to zero in on what we are really here for. it a discretionary review and there might be a little confusion is the effects that this addition has on neighbors and that's what's really before us. that's what really matters. i appreciate the commentary on green practices and hiring, that's very nice, but we are really looking at the just the effects that it has, the project has on the neighboring properties and i don't feel they rise to the level of

unusual and extraordinary. we have a lot of very tall buildings in the area. i'm very familiar with it. i come by this frequently. there are a lot of other structures and the building is to the west of the dr request or and there is quite an elevation change existing even now. so those two factors combined that the incremental change in light and air is minimal as evidenced by the shadow studies and for only short periods of time at certain times of the year and there isn't really much of an impact. most of the light that does come in is from the south and east which would not interest fear by this project. there is a 62 foot separation between the buildings. the addition is a reasonable one. it brings as pointed out which

makes for two nicely sized units. those are the key factors here that i noted in here. i don't really think, the question of the variance has been answered by the zoning administrator and that's up to the zoning administrator to determine. the rest of the project is co-compliant. i don't see an unusual impact on other properties. >> commissioner hillis. thank you for staying with us this long. i would tend to agree. i think the design is great. this kind of architecture works with this setting. i think it's vastly improved from the prior reiteration. that spun out of the earlier variance hearing. the only issue i have is the

balcony. can you give us an indication is >> it's going to be up on the overhead here proposed by the project sponsor. so they are showing the reduced size. it's going to be no wider than the window that is proposed and the hat condition, the stairs that they are to the minimum requirement of the building code, no larger. >> no stairs are required for

egress. >> with that, i want to make it clear that the planning commission has full authority although i may grant a variance to take the er. >> i would be supportive of that and you making the modifications to the variance or just doing it through a dr. it's reasonable. >> commissioner moore. i appreciate the commissioner's comment and the administrators reading on the balconies since this project since with no backyard so to speak. you are shifting any kind of open space these buildings may have and by reducing them to two openings. i think it is appropriate to consider that to be a reasonable project. since this project is code compliant it

meet all the requirements and rules which govern buildings in this particular category. i do appreciate the architecture. the only question that i would have to the owner is the following: is it in the exterior to why your building is dark. >> can you repeat that? >> is there something in the exterior material of your building why you are rendering this building out as a dark building, it's a light building. as my personal opinion in the background i see a composition of all lighter buildings and i think in east

facing facade this building would be less visible to your neighbors, it would actually contribute to a lighter more airy feeling if the colors of the building would be held in the light than in the dark. >> so you mean something maybe more like this color? >> i'm kind of just generically speaking about what you have in the background and perhaps your building even right now is a lighter building. when you make it as dark as you do, it becomes a much heavier and visible building and it distinguishes itself from others rather than blending. >> right, we've had a couple conversations about that as well. this was originally the color. originally it watts -- was a lot lighter and i would be happy to revert back to that scheme.

>> i think you might want to consider what you do with the east facing wall because that is a wall which potentially could give additional light at least a tone of lightness to the people who are across from you. >> it would have to blend more with the sky and the background. >> yeah. it becomes like almost light will reflect off it and doesn't add any feeling of darkness to the people living across the garden from you. >> i think that's an excellent solution and i would be happy to do that. >> also how you break it down to readable volumes. i'm not talking about the other walls except for the east facing wall. >> okay. thank you. >> perhaps you can work with staff to address that. i would appreciate that. >> thank you for your suggestions. >> commissioner antonini? >> i'm okay with the building light or dark. sometimes the

darker building seems smaller because it's not light but it as also commissioner moore point out it stands out because it's different from the others. the one thing i would ask project sponsors is whatever color you end up selecting you do some contrast opt -- on the bay and your garage and around the windows. i'm not sure if those are wood replacement windows. i don't know what's there now, but it gives a little bit of character whether it's dark with the light trim or light with the darker trim. that's probably a good idea. i'm prepared to make a motion to not take dr and prove and my motion is is in keeping with what i heard from the zone is administrator with the changes made to the balconies. >> second. >> would you add that the owner

just spoke briefly with staff on some of the color modifications. >> yeah. that would be great. >> on that motion to not take dr, and prove the project ascribed is by the zoning administrator with the project sponsor work with the staff on the color choices. commissioner antonini? aye, moore aye, wu aye, commissioner fong? aye. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. i have no speaker card. >> grant as noted previously reducing the balconies.

maximum shall be the minimum under the requirement code. >> commissioners that places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this evening. seeing none, meeting is adjourned. óóóógogogogogogogogo