this is two bedrooms. this is 75% the size of the others. she is largely funding a large part of the project. she could not afford to occupy one of those other two units. you cannot see hardly at all the existence of the top floor. this is above the two neighboring properties. and you take it from the floor of the grosz, when you take it

from the sidewalk, this is 30 feet. this shows you how the land is depressed. you go down a steep slope into the garage. >> i would like everyone to understand that personal family circumstances are not what this commission is for. >> this is not as tall as the

street that we saw. maybe the project sponsor can tell me. what you're doing is adding the upper floor. this does not look like it is much above the roof. do you know what that additional amount of height is. the roof virtually covers the new floor according the way that i can read it.

i think said everyone seems to be fine. maybe staff has an idea. >> i would say three, maybe four. i see that you did not feel that this would rise the level of taking dr. this looks like this is well done. there are two units that are larger and in the upper floor. this provides for a key building units and the. >> i have one condition that i would like to introduce and that

is on the front elevation by looking in the building, the existing windows are vertical and the proposed windows are horizontal. if we could maintain the vertical windows. >> are you referring to the sliding doors on the right hand side? >> both on the first floor and the second floor, these are vertical to horizontal. >> i believe that those are sliding doors.

>> would you be able to talk about sidewalk encroachment and there is this approval by the zoning administrator. what is our own attitude towards sidewalk encroachment slashlondon'? >> i did raise the concern when i was reviewing it but this decision was because this is regulated by another city agency this is within their purview.

>> we have to stay away where this slides in. >> i understand this is harsh to retrofit buildings but this is not my favorite condition. there's a special commission for one building. you are expected to look at this. have you discussed this with the architects. is there a way of not doing that?

>> we did ask for the setback. when we told them that, we pushed it back down. there was a back and forth but they ultimately decided that they wanted to go forward. >> i have not studied this a great deal but if they would have omitted the work form and the back of a grudge, would that have provided the length. you have put this in and then the floor. >> the issue is the slope of the street. this is a condition, this happens a lot of people are

putting garages into the floor. >> this is the floor of the grosz. >> public works requires a passage on the sidewalk for the public but does this allow some encroachment as long as there is appropriate height railing. >> i am not opposed to the building. i would like to the department to play close attention. i find this very discomforting. what is the fee structure? how is this being handled? >> if there is a permit fee, they would need to edit get the

upper preferments and deeper. fees. -- get the appropriate permits and get the appropriate fees deaf. >> this really extends to all streets. the privatization and the encroachment into the right of way is not something that we should practice very frequently. i would like for any future case to use all possible ways to resolve that. it is unfair and contradictory.

>> for i think that this can be done by providing a fairly flat area where you enter off of the grade and then this would descend into the garage. there should be enough to keep this flat area where you would not want to make a turn, this has to be more local as you approached the house itself. i think that they can work that out. i would move that we do not take dr and approve the project. >> second. >> there was a sliding door.

>> the motion is to not take discretionary review and accept this. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> you are now on item number 20, a and b. these are for 35 lloyd street. as you consider the discretion -- request for discretionary

review, the zoning administrator will consider the request for rear yard variants. >> the case before you is a discretionary review to construct a new four story to unit building. the project sponsors are seeking a rear yard of variants. the concerns are mainly over the height and how that will affect the privacy and they believe that the building is out of character rehearse -- out of character with the neighborhood.

modification is required by staff and this includes setting the -- back four feet, maintaining the street wall, the entry will be consistent with the pattern found elsewhere on the block. the material changes are more consistent with the contact and requiring the rear eastern side of the building and the setback to respond and reducing the with of the grunge -- reducing the cup width of the garage. we are recommending that have the discretionary not take

review. >> i am representing the source. it is exceptional but there is one vacant lot. this is extraordinary. of this has gone to review and remains out of scale to its context. this is a 20 foot and by 100 foot lot to. this is a formulaic development.

this is the same idea no matter that context. 15 foot setbacks. this proposal and a neighborhood of two and three story buildings is just out of scale. the neighbors would like three stories which would step down the hill. they tried to work with a planner on this but they were rebuffed.

there are more windows on the east property line . to the large building in this block are at the corners. these are on the major streets, not on the alleys. the footprint of just the fourth floor, this begins with a deck at the rear. that is the proposed project. the building adjacent is in orange. its footprint is smaller than

the fourth floor alone. in this neighborhood, there are short buildings that are tall and long buildings that are not so tall. add to their rear there is only one or two stories. at the street, there are two stories. this goes back about 2/3 on the building. what the project sponsor has done this to go through and try to argue that the guidelines are being met. in the residential design guidelines asks that designed the building so it follows the typography in a manner similar to surrounding buildings. i want to note that that is plural.

the exhibit shows that this proposal steps up the hill next to the buildings rather than stepping down with the other buildings. as i said previously on the steep lot, the set that does not work. this is very difficult. here is their exhibit showing how they step up with the other buildings. the anomaly that they're trying to imagine. within this neighborhood, is this the norm? is the building under developed? the rdt lists nine or 10 comments. these were all reported to be

concessions. this did not happen. there is 20% some landscaping at this site. the areas are too small. >> thank you. >> speaker is in favor. >> i represent all three. >> you forgot to specify that.

>> conducting and -- have good evening. we are adjacent to the property and we have been there since 1976 and we bought the property from judge donaldson and his partner. we raised our family here and we would welcome these neighborhoods. it has been often said by the developers that we don't want anything build on the lot. we would welcome a house that fits the scale and character of our street. at three stories, it would be perfect.

rising 50 feet on the street that is 29 feet wide would make it a towering mistake. the average height of the buildings are on our street are 35 feet. our neighbors on the northern side has twice as that to in the shadow steady and they were rebuffed th.

they avoided the shed a steady. in fact, construction is 50 feet tall. in their initial meetings, my wife and nine proposed to build and spoke of the two windows. these would face our property. we have declined to support the project because of the excessive height. this resulted in the number of windows facing east on our property to expand to four windows. as time passed and the opposition to the scale of the project increased, the number of windows increased to its present

nine windows. this encroaches on our privacy, our lifestyle, and that of our neighbors. these windows are unnecessary to provide light as the south elevation has more than enough windows to provide necessary light. if the building height has expanded in proportion to the number of windows, we would be looking at a building 200 feet tall. in addition, i was sent this e- mail.

texas claimed that the additional fact was being added at the request of the planning department. to me, this was all punitive and a take no prisoners approach. the far southern end of the property has an elevated deck, a privacy fence of only 5 feet sean. i asked at the height of defence be increased by two feet. mr. president, commissioners, i want to thank you for your patience and more importantly your work. the people who might want to

gain the system might have the upper hand. >> are you a dr requester? >> i am a friend of bob and mary. >> my a wife and i live on the

uphill side. we think that this is not compatible and clearly does not step the -- down the street. this potentially affects our house. you can see a complete lack of stepping down the street. they have verified both dimensions to be accurate. you can see that we have a 20

foot high house next to a 27 foot house. this gradually stepped up the peak of our roof is 38 feet back from the property line. this is considerably further than the rooftop and the penthouse roof deck. this is the view that you can see from the street. because of the steepness of the street, the entire building is completely visible. this is nothing to resolve the issues on the height of the building. the fourth floor and the penthouse are clear the planning department in their review never once addressed the fact that we have an additional street.

they have applied this to the same guidelines that they would apply to anywhere else. the neighbors believe that this would be appropriate. this is taken from these exchange you as the steps down the street. the second thing i want to address is how this will impact our life. this is going to be 27 feet above the windows on our living in the whim -- on our living windows. you can see the relative height of the two buildings at how much taller they will be we have asked them to match our 100% which they have refused to do.

half of the window will be covered completely by their building. we think that this will have a significant impact. we would like the light wells to be increased. to speak on the variants. a variance request is supposed to show extraordinary circumstances. this is supposed to be structures the cannot comply with the code. this is a new construction which has no reason for the variance. the planning code allows them to build a two stories in the back or and allows them to build one story. the