reason is for that is the resolution has been arrived on by the parties is that the case on number nine? >> a quick chance to call the item with appeal 13-026, joules roskum verses the department of building inspection, the project at 79, 26th avenue protesting the issuance on february 27th, permit to alter a building, addition to back all level and addition of one floor level in 500 square feet and remodel structure. >> brick glad stone speaking on behalf of the permit holder and a resolution and agreement, but the project sponsor has agreed to remove page a6 on the plans that were part of the permit subject to appeal. and it is the page that appellant has asked to be removed and we have agreed that is the extent of our agreement.

and i will let the appellant's attorney speak for himself. do you have any questions for me? >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, john appearing on behalf of the appellant. we have agreed that so long as page a6 is stricken from the permit, we are amenable to that and we will drop our request that they be required to hire a surveyer to insure that it is maintained within the envelope provided by the planning commission. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and can we hear from... >> i scott sanchez in the planning department, the department will not be opposed to the change of striking the plan, that plan was included for reference only and does not change the scope of the project and so what they are proposing would not change it. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment

on this item? seeing none, then the commissioners? the matter is yours. >> i think that the condition is for the board to condition the issuance on striking page 6 of the plan set. >> any comments? >> nothing? >> okay, i will move to grant the appeal. up holding the permit on condition that a6 will be stricken from the plans. >> is that all? >> based on the parties' mutual agreement. thank you. >> we have a motion from the

president. to grant the appeal and up hold the permit on the condition that apple 6, a6, that the approved plan set be struck from the scope of the permit and on the basis of the party's mutual agreement. on the condition to up hold it. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0 and the permit is upheld with page a6 instruct and on that basis. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay we will call item five, 12-171, matthew and kristine (inaudible) with the department building, 611 beuna vista west avenue, providing the issuance of the permit to alter a building, one story vertical

addition to two story residents and will include, and the project will have a basement addition. and we will start with the appellant. attorney, brandt holly. >> good afternoon, i am representing for the appeal and the planning commission granted discretion review in this mat and her made a condition that we are going to discuss which has not been fulfilled because of inadequate site plan and starting just a little bit father back, is that going to show? >> you can see that may i point? no. that is not going to work,

either. i am sorry >> overhead? please. >> well, you will see in the overhead a photo of the street and maybe you can tell me victor when it shows. >> there it is. >> there it is. >> it is a sloped street and at the top of the street is the home, the appellant's home at 601, and this picture is taken from the park across the street. and you can see right next is the current applicant and 615. and you can see that and the current home allows this ability of all of the other historic homes on the street. and it also the property also slopes down behind these homes down below. and the problem, there are a number of problems with the

proposed addition, primarily the lot is much too small for the mass and scale that is being proposed. it is a small lot in between as you can see the very large lots and while the current home does not impact the historic integrity, the privacy or the light and shadows of the neighbors, there is this addition will in a very significant way. overhead, please? or will it just stay on now? >> yeah. this shows the current back side of the property, you can see the amount of windows in the current addition. and they are proposing to double the size by adding another addition. you can see the very large home next to it at 615, while it is taller, in fact it has very small windows and one of the problems with this proposed project is that the use of materials is very different from those of the historic neighborhood and the amount of glass being used is causing, if

you will hear significant light and glare issues. now, the current home has been the subject of a dwell magazine article. which the project sponsor is rightfully proud of. we did note that in the dwell, magazine article. that was attached to the project sponsor's submital. there is a statement made. i don't know if it will all show, it is in your materials, but basically, what is disclosed in the article is something that is important to this appeal also that ten years ago the same project sponsor with the same architect proposed this additional story. but what the architect says in the dwell magazine article is that community concerns about changes in the historic character of the neighborhood ruled out building anything taller than the original structure. the architect settled on a

solution, that would fit within the footprint of the original home, limit resource use and make the house feel much more spacious and that is in fact, what happened ten years ago is that there was discretionary review by four neighbors, and there were negotiations and there was an agreement made for the current home because that addition creates problems with the privacy, and the light and glare, and it effects views from the... excuse me, from the park across the street and it effects the ocean views. and as we can see the changes next door it will block the chimneys and so there are a lot of ways in which it does not comply with the development guidelines and you will also be hearing about the site planner or. we don't know why, of course, but for some reason, the sight plan used for the basis of the 2003 addition was eronious and it changed the relationship of

the homes on either side, for example, the house with the turits was in fact put on a site plan as if it was almost four sfaoet further for award than it was that allowed them to put this new construction further, or closer to the street than it was really allowed and we don't expect this house is coming down and it does not effect the considerations and it also effects the planning commission and will be previous here because i would like him to speak and basically the planning commission, they found that the view coming down the street of the house on the corner, 601, was going to be obscured by this addition and it should be set back so that the view was not obscured. because they looked at the wrong site plan and said that it is three feet should be enough, in fact there is a four feet problem. it was a two-foot set back addition, three additional feet

was requested by or ordered by the planning commission but actually it should be an additional four, we request that you grant the appeal and deny the permit and at the very least make them go back another four feet on that edition if nothing else. >> i live at 601, and just briefly i want to show. i don't know how many people have seen this and could you widen that? this is the original existing site plan from 2002 construction if you look at my ruling, you can see that the existing site plan, the building is set back and probably over a foot. and this is, the proposed site plan, for the 2002, construction. and now, the building is just about exactly in line with the two adjacent building. the problem is that obviously we had it surveyed when the numbers did not start working

out we kept measuring that the commission says three feet and it did not make since, we finally figured out that our house at 601 had been moved up bment four feet and three feet and ten inches and gave them a superior, you know, it gave them the ability to move forward on the erroneous site plan which they did. the actual set back should be 12 feet nine inches and plus the three feet that the planning commission ordered if you are going to grant that upper story but we wish that you wouldn't. >> thank you very much. >> 30 seconds, there has been numerous causes for lack of good faith from where the windows that were put in and they were twice the size in what was agreed on in settling in 2004, or 2002, and there was a bunch of litigations for the front that were never done,

landscaping mitigation and trella ces and extra that they just ignored and thank you so much. >> the last document that you showed, you indicated that was a survey that you prokured? >> this is a survey, and a surveyer is here. tonight. >> and is he a licensed survey or? >> he is, he works for fredricks and associates and they are the one that did this survey and so if you could answer the survey questions, there has been a day taking readings i am not sure how they do it but i think that it is precise. >> before you sit down, could you do a side by side comparison? or just put it on there. >> this is actually an over what you are looking at. >> the green lines are what were on the site plan, that was submitted by the project sponsor, the black lines are the correct places of the

buildings. and so, it is pretty if you look i am sorry i should have said that earlier. you can see that the house with the torit and that is three foot ten inches, it is actually three feet ten inches back from where the project sponsors put the house. >> it is a pretty sizeable error and i spoke with the state's architect you aral. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if we could hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening. >> excuse me, before you start. >> yes. >> madam director there were two briefs on the permit holder. >> right. >> the reason why was because the board took the first on schedule, and from the appellant came forward and explained to you why she didn't

file a brief on time. and you gave her the opportunity to file a brief later and the opportunity for the permit holder to respond to that brief. >> okay. >> that is why, it is unusual. >> and before i begin, a couple of evidentiary matters, i would like to request the ability to submit a correspond ans that we submitted to scott sanchez having to do with the survey issue, if you don't mind taking that and some exhibits that are architect prepared in that regard. >> could you just describe, we don't have time to read it. >> yeah, okay. absolutely. it explains that there may have been a measurement error. back in 2002, and that it does not actually make any difference at this point, given the concerns expressed by the planning commission. and it goes... and so... >> it is not there and not

relevant of the upshot of what that communication will be. >> correct. >> and that will be pointed out in our remarks as well. this is just evidence that we would like to submit to back that up. >> i am anna from the law firm sedwick and i am hear representing the permit holder. and the brief refers to the board's authority to make the decisions based on the project

adverse effects on the public's request. there is no such adversity to the public interest represent bid this proposal. the project sponsors have bent over backward to accommodate the interests of the surrounding neighbor and we suggest that you support the position to allow the revision to the modern styled home. more than a decade ago, they proposed a vertical addition to the 1946 home, and the neighbors objected and rather than fight and due to timing costs and concerns, he agreed to remodel the home. the first floor was pulled forward to match the then existing over-hanging plain of the second floor. and the envelope in footprint were unchanged. the resulting modern structure has won awards. back then, no written agreement with the neighbors was entered into. >> no contracts preclude the sponsor and eager to start a

family from proposing to alter the home. they proposed a two story addition and began to discuss with the neighbors with the design team and the process of the commission and the sponsors made substantial meaningful design concessions to respond to and request the neighbor's concerns and they removed the fourth floor altogether and they reduced the size and number of windows due to privacy and light concerns, added an exterior luver system to the windows for the same purpose and pulled back walls, and reduced the roof deck size and changed exterior materials, and colors, and reduced the size of, lowered the height of and shifted the location of the stair penthouse which caused them to have to redo the interior design, the proposed addition from 1300 square feet to less than 850 square feet. and 8 months ago, the planning common

hearing and in the end took it for the purpose of pulling the wall back three feet specifically as a designed gesture to insure the ability of the home at 601, and there is month protected view shed involved the subject view is a momentary one from a location in the public street. the commission specifically declined to pull the wall back any more than three feet. out of concern with the resulting interior space would be too small and that is correct. appellants make much of the effect that they have undertaken a survey showing a house at 601 is further from the street and the home at 615 closer to the street than we have thought. and per the document submitted now, there may have been a measurement error in 2002 that was carried forward into this process and thus we have now provided a new corrected site

plan the upshot is that the required set back has moved back 1 and a half feet but the front one sits behind that set back line. and so the house is entirely consistent, the tweak in the sight plan in no way effects validity. >> the objective has been fully attained and the photo montages. >> how do i do this again? >> overhead. >> i did. >> sorry. >> and the photo montags shows that it is amply visible and prominent as seen from the street, in this hearing, we urge the board of appeals to decide that even if the view is an issue of public import, despite the fact that no protections nr place for the very large home at 601, and the design of the addition,

respects the turit and allowed it to be quite visible and thus the public request is serve and my clients' extremely modest addition can proceed. >> and would like the architect to address you >> i am the architect for the original project and for today. and so i want to explain the architecture and the comparisons rather than the planning history so that we can cover a few issues. >> the project itself represents what i believe is the way to develop new buildings in old cities and most cities. the original renovation struck

out to create a modern building and one with details and interest and a lot of proportions that are in the buildings adjacent to it and if you study this block around the park, there is a pattern of development that is completely this. and this is not out of character. there is tall buildings, short, modern buildings, the span of age of many of the buildings there go for probably 200 years. and even the age difference between the victor an on the left, and the crafts man style on the right, is probably 150 years if you want to look at it from the historical perspective. any how, so for today, when we created this vertical addition, the general idea which is staying with the pattern of development, but in modern way is that a lot of the buildings have lower and upper parts, most of the time they are big roofs and sometimes they turrets with roofs an

see wer part of the building or the upper part of the and so we did with the same modern set of tools i did the lower and the upper and so it is following the general pattern of development and so that explains it. the materials are different and they are warm as anna mentioned there are fewer windows than we started with and academic similarities that i want to take you through. >> here is the site plan which is also the roof plan, and it has got a roof garden on there for the agriculture because these guys are into that, and that is part of the use and you can see how it is set back and i have 30 seconds. right here, the comparison drawings, okay? and so, on the left, is where we submitted it in the city planning and on the right is where it set back three feet and now these are not from the drawings, these are rendering, these are photographs and stakes with the photographs and you can see on the first one

and this is an point, and if you are up the street it is different. here is another angle you can see on the left verses the right and exposed by moving it back three feet and this shows the places, let me just make one more point. and back to here, you need to notice that this house is average is 15 feet away from 601. some of rendering make it look close, but it is 15 feet away and the other thing about the mis... the error in the site plan, which i apologize for, going back ten years i am trying to figure what that is hard. not only is the house as matt mentioned, further back, or closer, but it is one thing that is measured is actually further away in reality from 611, so there is more air space

between them. and as you can see on the right, where the sloping roof s you really get three free standing buildings. and i think that covers it, thank you. >> any questions? >> is there a picture of twot rendering? >> the comparison? s >> it is in the materials that were submitted to the board. there are two sets. >> is this the first one? >> but what exist? >> it should say at the bottom, the view from the composite sidewalk. 6. >> and let's call a spade a spade. they are worried about the view, from their turret to the city, nobody is worried about seeing that from the street.

the last time that i checked the views were not protected >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department, just a background on the subject property, it is west avenue and located in the rh three and it is a three unit residential zoning district and the subject by itself is a little bit smaller than you typically see and it is narrower by 25 by 96 feet deep and the subject building permit application was submitted in may of 2011. and environmental review was filed and the neighborhood notice was conducted a year ago

and the discretionary review was filed and the planning commission has a dr hearing on this and the issues related to the third floor addition and display the scope of the project and the dr requestor wanted to see that not allowed, and the planning commission and deliberating this did not find that there were circumstances that warranted removal of the third story, they did, take discretionary view and set back the third story, in order to the guesture in order to i guess, i guess if you are going up beuna vista that the turret would be prominent and there was discussion and debate of how much to set it back, the planning commission had the plans and maybe the incorrect plan for the adjacent property and there was a discussion

about how much to set it back. as previously proposed, the third floor was never actually had a 0 set back, but the third story, was going to be set back, a couple of feet from the primary facade of the existing building by two feet and so the planning commission, ultimately the motion was to take the discretion view and set it back three feet additionally from what it was set back and that was five feet from the building facade and it may have been inaccurate and they also used photos in making the decision, and i think that it is very subjective about how much it should be set back and the board of appeals may find that it does not need to be set back as well and could go back to the front set back line and it is in the board's jurisdiction in this matter. and so i think that there was

no really clear scientific distinct. and there are some photos that could be helpful on the overhead, if i could say the magic word, overhead. that is not a very magic word. >> please overhead. >> we do have some glare but this is looking at the street and this is the 601 and this is looking at the turrit and so just as it progressively getting closer. and so, as you can see the, you know, at some point here, the adjacent property, i think that

it is 615, the eves and the building law are actually going to obscure it as is. it should be noted that the project as proposed is set back further than that building, than that 615. and so, really there is a question of what the board thinks is appropriate in terms of the board would like to up hold the commission's decision and giving a little bit of a set back here in order to accommodate a better view of the turrit and i would enforce the views from it are not protected those are private views but the commission felt that this would provide some character features that were i guess enjoyable when you are driving down or driving up. and so with that i will be available for any questions that the board may have. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. a couple of points. the averaging calculation between the two structures went

from the tangent to the adjacent building. >> so the averaging terms of determining the front set back requirement. we take the distance from the front property line to the main building walls of both of the adjacent properties and so, based on that and the revised plans is correct, and then the set back the required set back would be 12 feet. planning code section 132 requires... >> i understand that. but where the turn occurs is that in the main building wall or is it the wall beyond that? >> so the face of the turrit is not the main building wall, we would use the flat building wall that is parallel to the front property line and it would be the plans that the commission had approved or had reviewed initially that project would have actually been located within the front set back and so