as well as some other buildings. i'll be happy to answer any questions >> sorry. >> okay opening it up for public comment i have two speaker cards. lilly chapman and - >> hello, i'm speaking on behavior of the neighborhood association. we - the office of middle pocker is out of town and asked me to speak apparently there was a meeting held at one time and middle polk was not informed of this. i just did speak to the architect and project sponsor

and they put out notices but the community didn't have is a chance to give input. without incriminating positively or negatively on the proposal an observation would be this is a low rise neighborhood of small businesses and homes. this is a one hundred and 50 foot tower in the middle of the block that will cast a significant amount of shadows. it seems 40 to be out of scale with the small businesses and mobile homes homes on this block of bush street. the project sponsors want to retain their city car rental in there which is a positive thing but the scope and scale of the proposed tower is disconcerting.

i would personally urge the commission to not approve at this time but to request a continuous from the project sponsor so we the surround neighborhoods association and homeowners and merchants can meet with them and give feedback as to some of the elements of this project. so thank you very much. >> linda chapman. i was kajtd by an alarmed jean about the size and bulk and also about robert garcia who had a southern about since there's been an all shop there if the e

pollution around that. this the the pulp neighborhood commercial district. may be one step anti where the van necessary plan meets it. there's nothing like this anywhere near the district. sequa denies infidel but doesn't say that anything designed is sequa. one thing says accommodated impact of successive if the projects over the same type. there's one even larger planned a block away like polk street and 65 height would be overtaken by the van ness plan. another thick is a significant effect if there's a reasonable

possibility there can be a large van ness plan scale which is appropriate for van ness impimping on this low-rise area with low alleys. for in fill is also says it has to comply with the regulations which it certainly doesn't. it does not comply with the priority plan with the neighborhood preservation but the other half of that policy is neighborhood preservation and are mandatory that those be, you know, considered the priority policies for conditional use. without having some kind of environmental review i don't see how you could e valley the c not

even a mod deck. the general plan is where a we have variances. i could see a variance nigeria in this case a hardship for a rear yard but how about a hardship that demands for the unbelievable by being 40 thooet feet smaller than the rest of the building which is very tall and hienlly wide like a house lot and a half that is usually allowed. good afternoon commissioners and wanting fong representing the lower polk neighbors. we met with the sponsor and since then we've not been contacted by e the developer.

we were notified by the posting of today's hearing by the posting on the building and we requested a continuous to on october meeting. since then we've had back and forth e-mails. leadership of the lp n is not opposed to the project but we've been unable to meet with our membership. we do support the auto as a local business but we are not supportive of the new use but thought retention. we strongly request the ride share. we do want to mention we're concerned with thirty now comedies in the vicinity and

it's to require some form of disclosure to the neighborhood for night life >> any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. opening up to commissioners. commissioner moore >> i just time to jump to the chase and support my continuous and the reasons are: while i think the project meets the planning code except for the vanes it more me presents a bad design seclusion and i'd like to outline why. a number of months we discussed the readapt use of steven son street and we discussed in great

detail how to creately dissolve the issue of the court yards and looking at the design unit was in a restrained size. this takes a blunt approach without respect to anything maximizing what you can pack in here with no nobleable community outreach. we're talking about the second floor but it didn't do anything for fern street or fern alley which is a very difficult alley situation in polk street. having said that the dwelling units expose the bedrooms to a walkway that overhangs into your

court yard with no opportunity to create windows and people walk by your bedrooms. you can look at this building and you probably all recall my extensive analysis of steven son the majority of complaints about steven son which we positively resolved. if we're starting to dense if i this part of town norm the first building which steps to the lion is one which makes future references to twinkiestion to other building this maximize out to any future vacancy and it might exist as a problem for

years to come. the building in itself i believe is not at all in line if we have identification here and why it meets the code it does not understand the creativity we would except for part of the planning commissions preview i'd like except them to use the highest level of sxrut imply for the variance of a court yard which is completely over exaggerated and not relative to was it needs to do in an identified unit design >> yeah. i'd agree with commissioner more and more this building is extremely aggressive and it's oversized interest it doesn't step down to the alley

we talked about the alley have variances we talked about the lot windows and it is horrify it sticks out to me it's not at all respectful i recognize the height is what the height is but there's a way this can be skunld. i think it's a extreme aggressive >> i'm also supportive of a continuous. the units here i'm not sure the height is appropriate but even if it is it looks worse because it takes no includes from the holiday in its one of the worst

looking building it's a cookie cutter urge building. it should fit in about the rest of the buildings and take some clues from the neighborhood. donates the one thanking thing and the other thing is the parking lot. we heard they've got a hardship they can't meet the codes because they'd have to go subterranean and i'm not sure why they can't be having the additional 6 parking places when they seem to be able to put in 26. i don't know what the appropriate time is to make some of the changes but we need design changes >> i think it takes 4 months this is a difficult site and . >> maybe i can talk to the

architect. can you talk about how those designs that we're proposing would you say take 90 days? that depends on the extent of changes >> you can hear it's extent i have. >> we're now in september we're saying january is fine with me. >> second and a can you give us something in december or january. >> well, your december and january dates are still wide open. december 5th would be your earliest date and the first hearing in january assuming we school january 2nd january 19th.

well, i'm going to move it to january 19th. we can continue a second time >> commissioner more and more. >> i look the zoning administrator to help kind of frame the issues properly and the issues are the recommendation for live ability to bedroom windows and the absolute need for compromise cinnamons of the court yard and it does and does not meet the court yard it's 70 feet short of the thirty feats it needs to be i think it needs to be 23 feet and the issue that the 6 by 6

balcony is so minimal you can't see people. i'd like to have somebody meet with the applicant and how quickly this plan could be resolved and i do disagree that the explores of cars is really want we want above. nobody who going goes by will distinguish that this all space will be visible to the street and that's unacceptable. >> commissioner wu. i want to make a comment about outreach. this project came to us and the

neighbors said they didn't have the chance to speak with the sponsor. it's hard to know but it's clear that the upper and lower polk have questions and maybe the department can provided contacts the most recent contacts. i'm not sure where the notification process is failing us. commissioner >> yes. i'd like to follow-up on the parking open the second level comment. i think that the plan wise it shows it as residential parking. we have a concern about that. and the staff should take note of that and staff should take a look at the way the earth is

presented. the neighborhood context is quite different. and i'm not sayingt has to have a one hundred percent, you know, doesn't have to look like it's neighbors exactly we're not saying that. but staff gets the idea. and i think we're not totally - well, i'm not totally opposed to the height. there are other buildings in the area that may not quite as at all so height to me isn't a concern >> following up on that comment it's not as much height as you deal with did you pull back into mid block but in anticipation of

future building this will maximize this when people come from the north and south. this building needs to anticipate as the first kids on the block you've got to be extremely creative with the graduating identification for others >> commissioners increases another motion and a second to continue this matter to december 19th. with that (calling names) so moved commissioners that motion passes 7 to zero >> the variance will continue to december 19th as well. >> commissioners that places you on item 13.

at 2070 through 2080 chestnut street >> i'm mary woods of department staff. the c u before i say by coffee and tea to establish a former retail from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. pete's was located at 2466 chestnut street. that provides two retail spaces tot totaling approximately 21 hundred square feet and to you think if i it into a could he was design. the c u is required for hours between 6:00 a.m. departments recommendation is to approve the project with conditions.

although this is a former retail use of a new location but pete have long been on the same block important about 29 years so basically, it's a relocation of a retail use. this concludes my report if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> project sponsor please. hi commissioner i'm michael williams i'm the vice president of beach coach and tea. we've started over 40 years and 29 years ago we will opened our first store on chestnut. we want to move down the block because it is a better location for us.

i do want to mention it's going to be built with the new store idea and bring a platform for us to start that idea. we employ over thirty people in the neighborhood at this location. we agree with mary's remedies except condition won a photo control for the property we're not roosevelt coffee on site and there were no other complaints. also our h b c system will have filters and we appreciate your time >> is there that i public comment on this item? and a

partial marine a. we're in favor of this but want some more conditions to be more specific on this particularly project because since 0 they've signed their lease they've not kept the front of the building clean and they've got the homeless coming around. we've had a wonderful conversation and we want to add steam cleaning once a month and the sidewalks and nobody margaritas in the backyards for the meeting for the sheer faculties close to the people outside and particularly earlier in the morning. we're asking for a liaison to the neighbors since there's - in

case there's a problem. is there another one chris? and chris is going to address the backyard issue but to move in we're sorry under the circumstances we've lost a business a that's been there 29 years and come into the area the same time as pete's. that's it and we welcome and they've agreed to those conditions. thank you >> next speaker. >> hello, i'm chris hawkins i live on this building for 16

years and also a fan of pete's coffee. when we got notice they were going to a new location we got existed because that's a good use of the space. i received the notice and spoke to a person in charge of the space. my residence there's a whole borrowed of backyards and it's like a echo chamber in there. originally pete's indicated they wanted to use that space but after a lot of subtraction with the neighborhood they've withdrawn their application. it was unclear if they were going to get that added. i represent about 15 of the

neighbors in this area that have common areas and just outside of this meeting i met with a number of the pete's exclusives who are new to this project and they've agreed they does not intend to use the backyard and if they do so they'll enclose it. because of the potential future noise should she want to use this backyard we ask you include in the additional use they can't have an open air like an open air cafe but if they want to expand they have to sound proof

it. so we'd ask you add that to the conditional use. another issue that we had concern with it seems revolved but the use of garbage cans being removed early in the morning but they have a plan in place we want to add no garbage activity >> is there any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner borden >> i'm familiar with this cafe why do you inside the other

space i don't know why the move i'm curious about the move. >> it's more of a question for the project sponsor. >> donates a great question. actually, it was a have small space and the landlord raised the rent and accompanied president coincidely there was a chance to move the store. there was another spot did you look at that space >> that was before my time and a thanks. >> good question. >> i mean it's a beautiful building and obviously their merging them and obviously pete's could use more space. it could have been a neighborhood servicing cafe now,

it's a clothing store pop up >> thanks for the history. >> in terms of the motion it does have the liaison. the steam cleaning would we add that as a condition of approval >> with regard to steam cleaning it's not required by department it's now required by department of public works. >> could we endorse it. >> yes. >> in terms of the condition i guess about not using the back patio for any kind of business use and i think odor control there's an item here in the

motion that deals with the odor i don't know about the garbage but anything additional. >> perhaps i could speak to that. typically odor condition is placed more on restaurants or self-service restaurants because of venting gas or cooking. and in this case it would seem reasonable they discontinue with their other existing business so if the commission wants to strike that importantly that would be okay >> is that condition 7 or 18? both of those can be potentially be struck.

commissioner anton >> i'm supportive of this and even though we can't require the steam cleaning i certainly would like to see it as a finding and encourage it but many of our streets have gum from 20 years ago it's disturbing when you see those sidewalks. so retailers can do whatever to keep them clean it's encouraged >> commissioner wu. >> we were reminded that for po