application we're not saying a yes or no but not able to judge on it. to be continued >> did he hear a second commissioners? i don't hear a second >> i think the department themselves would be well-advised to second this you can't approve a drawing out of the context it's impossible. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have to understand i have a pretty good idea of how this particular property is being expanded and safes there's to variance but the rear generated is okay. and the house steps down in co-op the slope of the property so it seems to me and

they talked about the minimum of 5 foot set badgering back on either side is gracious because we require at least a 3 foot set back and the light well, is present i'm not positive about that that maybe part of what commissioner moore is looking for. i like the project and it makes senses and it restores what the building looks like and it looks better in the future from the other which that was stuccoed. i will not take d r i want to hear with the other commissioners have to say

>> looked like to know if the project sponsor architect if f is in the office. would you like to come up and talk about the questions raised will i commissioner moore about your drawings >> i'm the architect. sheet number 2 shows the full length of the lot the rear yard set set back and the fourteen feet 4 inches plus 4 foot is the back of the house at the first floor. as you come up the stairs

subtract of 4 feet and that includes the roof on the second and third floor there's a set back of 5 feet on the property lines. any other questions >> if i may. it is typical practice if you're a residential architect that proposed buildings additions and changes are pit into a side plan by which we can properly judged how adjacent buildings inspected in the configuration effect each other since this is a drawing that's not based on a verified site survey as sheet one indicates it maybe afterwards

doesn't meet the standard of care as practiced by architects. >> typically open our side plans we show the two adjacent neighbors the north and south neighbors. >> it didn't relief i from showing a drawing the intuply is not just express the generalized they're not 9.5 there are all kinds of things and the accuracy for this need to be considered whether or not the applicant has a real concern or as to whether or not your proposal is fully underline we understand the next drawings to each.

i'm not trying to make you wrong there's a level of information missing to for us to judge your application. i'm not taking a stand up for the merits or lack thereof i'm not able to judge >> if i might interject i know from a submittal for department of planning inspection they don't ask for alternative drawings. it's sort of a typical in those surveys such as this for an alternative if it was a new construction on vacant particles they don't provide a vary is a survey and that's a scenario and a but if i may.

>> i do know you know yourself in the discussion of the dr like that it's really in the subtle accuracy of where is the crux stand. we have many projects of this kind and they're submitted with the level of detail and i believe this is definitely a point where the department should have asked for more because in order for us to practice and act as a commission j e judging apples and oranges and apples and apples. >> that's well take place and it can and should be provided by project sponsor.

>> commissioner hillis. >> i'll second commissioner moore's objection. it's kind of out of reconciling scale i agree it meets the code but it's insensitive to what else is going on especially on the 3rd floor the roof should slope down more. i'm not against an edition i think you can do it better. i don't know if i have a proposal to start cutting badgering back on the 3rd floor it would cause trouble with the elevators and such. i recommend we make comments with general changes to the project but i have a hard time

of the provisions here in what's around >> commissioners preschooler that original motion to go forward failed. >> i'd like to re-up the motion in rorps to that that i i intentionally kept away from commenting i wanted to see it in the form we're expecting. i agree with our observations but i don't want to discuss the project outside. >> there's a motion and second. >> commissioner wu. >> if we were to continue is the public hearing still closed are public dilations. >> the public hearing in the plan has closed but the sunshine

says any agenda listed order must accept public comment. we have the final certification of the final comment that can be submitted under the agenda it might be awkward >> so should we accept general comment on this item or the dr hearing. >> that autopsying all depends upon whether or not there's alternate modified plans. we'll restart the hearing process >> i wouldn't not necessarily want to hear the defendant r hearing but i defer to

commissioner moore's opinion. but i'm a little bit struggling here. >> commissioner borden. i can see what she's talking about but i think we ought to look at this i see the adjacent buildings and the art scales but gaga again i don't get that. i'll say to the public if you all come to an agreement we don't have to see this again. we don't have to have it back again, if the project sponsor modifies the plan and you reach on agreement we don't have to

see this again. it's in both courts we pick a time for it to come back or you work it out interest it's easier if you come to an agreement then the community can hopefully fourth what you can live with. everybody does get everything they want it's not a perfect situation. we can be respectful when someone is trying to accomplish their project but be sensitive to the situation. it would make the process earrings for us >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'll be awe memorable to the continuance with commissioner hillis.

but if we vote to continue the project architect speak with commissioner moore and he's clear with what she wants done so we don't through go through another hearing. with regard to what was suggested by commissioner hillis i was okay with that the way it was. maybe the pitch of the additional floor seems to be square that's probably you have a little bit more of a pitch to the floor even though you don't see it from the street that would be more remedy sanity thought you pitch of the house so long as that's right room enough not to use the space on the side.

and at the need to continue this >> yes. is there a date you want to continue this to? >> i ask the applicant it's coming the holiday season so why not at the end of january? >> as the maker of the motion would you like to choose a date we have december 12th, the 19 and not again until january 9th. it's the first or second week in january >> the 16th. january 16th accounting is that be acceptable? commissioner moore >> would you want to hear the question or call for a comment. >> i think what i'm asking for is not what i'm asking for but

i'm saying we as commissioners absolutely need in order to better practice. the standard of care as defined in architecture would not make it even a question that the basic strings inspected while open your oppose property as well as those on the side. we're looking at this when we look at drs when we modify an application in front of us. this drawing lacks that information not only in the depay attention we need to know what the applicant says it's 26 hundred feet we're approving something we don't have the ability to see the size.

if we're praying the drawing the number doesn't allow us to understand what we're approving. i hope as the commission will be revising or looking at its rules and regulations i hope we as a department the residential design team will give a more consistent message for people who come to us with the larger and smaller projects to avoid what we've seen today. we're only asking for better information >> commissioner antonini. >> it that an adequate amount of time to proceed. okay. thank you >> i want to say in the on

topic this is setting some sort of standard this is a small promise. it might be helpful if we had some sort of sample or template or a check list of items because you know this is for the architect and whether he has an discussion with you or not in private t he would be guessing what you have in mind. >> commissioner. shelly call the questions arrest on the matter commissioner antonini. sxhrnd. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. no. sxhirgsz that motion passes 5 to one with president fong voting against and places you on item 17 case 13.1286 d and i have a

question. those plans are even more - >> i'm sorry. i want to understand are you looking the plans for barring let street because it's bans what we decided on the other case. it seems to me those plans have less information >> this is the project that lies completely different. i want to say that's a completely different thing it's legal listing something that's there so the plan is completely different. >> please continue. >> item 17. at 259 a request for

discretionary review this is an abbreviated discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners in the a discretionary review to legal liza desk on 2151 barring let located in the midgets strict this murders approximately 2 hundred square feet of desk area. you have the case report materials and at this time staff has nothing further to add the project was reviewed but he remain design team that noted in the dr are not usually and it's the departments position it doesn't create any extraordinary six and the department recommend it be approved.

if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> dr requester. >> go ahead and start talking. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm shawn. i live at barring let street and my bedroom window is 5 feet from the proposed deck and it allows the occupant to see me sleeping. referred to as the view. >> thanks. this is the view from the deck to my bedroom you also have it in your packet. second page in the deck shows

the plan of where the roof questioning is in proximity to the neighboring property being my property. when the barring let property was remodeled two years ago it was never approved for a deck. and despite my former complaints that was built anyway. he asked me if i opted it i said, yes. the current occupants bought the building knowing it didn't have a deck. partner had a discussion. i have the documents here the

follow-up letter to speak to some information. since that time in 2011 despite my disencouragement the current resident added railings and built in furniture and plants this has been going on for two years and it looks directly into my bedroom window. please don't allow them to put a deck outside my bedroom window. let's review this so it won't be so invasive. >> there any speakers in support of the dr requester? okay project spokesperson you have 5 minutes.

>> my name is chris i'm the owner on bartlett street it was asked for me to show some paperwork so regarding this roof area that's been converted into a deck. the pit wall had been raised loirg for the proper space and it was legally required. in terms of the work we put down a surface it was a proposal it's not increasing the footprint we've got photos. we know that there's a concern about privacy that's been made

dauntingly clear. this is after hearing the request for privacy we invested some planters along the line so there would be a privacy screen. it was for on ero own benefit but so he could have a private area. so it's not the best thing but it's a simple thing we want a deck baits it's the executive deck area four folks have a generated and we have the possibility of a deck. we want to enjoy the backyard. we have 5 letters in support and their curiosity neighbors. there's opinion.

we've done what we can and it's a city we live next to each other and any concern about the bedroom for all tints and perspires that mirrors can look into his kitchen so there's a privacy concern we live in a city and need to find a way to live amongst ourselves. we really want it t a place to go outside and enjoy the sunlight. >> thank you speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> if there are no speakers in support then you can have

rebuttal. >> yeah. i think we do live in the city we all know that. sometimes, it gets tight spaces spaces and i think what to move this along i am willing - rather than in your paychecks where you see the full length of the side of the building an option might, looking at some sort of continuums where the deck is at the back of the house. that would be my rebuttal. >> okay project sponsor you have

a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i appreciate there being some option for compromise. this is how we consider how we can be receptionist full of each other. i feel like we've visited properly and it's pleasing. i want to reiterate we have 5 letters we're pretty consider e considerate. okay. the public hearing is open to commissioners >> i want to respond to sxhrnds

opinion. we're legal listing the roof-deck what did the original application envision in that place that's a question i didn't see anywhere in the report. the thing i don't know is the plans as they stand don't show how the deck is educated does someone crawl out a window. and what about the common building is that the day i assume everyone needs to agree to the common areas of the building where the spaces have to be approved by the interior association or whatever the appropriate word it here.

if the landlord may have to approve a deck in this particular location. and what is legal or what are we leg legalizing. >> i may answer that. this is complicated permit. the first permit didn't show any deck on this roof it only showed the par pit and this was approved over the counter. they came back to put the deck on the roof. we wouldn't sign off it was to be signed off over the creditor we did not and put an n a and dbi issued that permit. subsequentially it was built

with the permit and that didn't come to us. that's where the discrepancy occurred. they were issued a violation and now it was a series of permits one of which didn't come back to us and a at this time we realized it wasn't legal under the planning code >> the follow-up by mistake ca was it not come back back to you. >> no it was approved over the counter no routing. >> commissioner antonini. >> it sounds like even though planning had suggested that there are not be a permit the

issuing dbi still could issue it. >> i think there was just a mistake. they didn't realize it noted to come to planning so it's a preschooler mistake so, now we have a situation where we have a d r because i'm assuming it's not a continual use it's something that would have been permitted and might not have come to us unless it was a dr request >> right. >> it sounds like this is something that planning is willing to approve even the route we got there was a complicated one. >> yes. this is somewhat similar to a deck you had in july