thinloo er well tot out. it ifferet fro wt i excted wi r otel i leed wit tt the cocet of eet cl trfly, if o goe c oricly certinl fro the 192 i frcico clu ot of rket beet cl ot of rket were l oer te lce they wet tro roiition exited fterwr certinto t 1 1970 there till e oe i t filiar with te re t the et. they wor they oltel wor it ti ro c t like this toeter, te care of itoric ili well, i wa lee wit te letter from s frcico chitectural rita i' er ffirti of ti >> i t ti i a excelle

exe of ti ree when i loo ow rket reet, i la t fct tt we hen recrely wor cit e, i vote for it t tt we are o ow rter t reinome of tee il we're eoliin them a bldintee colexe it alwce to ee tt il iei reer a the er youe in it i thin i rell ireive. ri te eer igorodon i wa w ee te fct th we co do re to tr to ecore th ort of loent on16th treet i waju wli lo tere lat weetwee ot a br tere oe tiful ili wa lc enou to i ee i thout wh a lo if we lot of

those ili ece they jt t te lie th are i to ee tt te il iin to e eser te wa it into be eerved certi te rterip with lri treet i o ow imrtt o tt the thinth

a little it chleinwhen you loo these tyof roject bece it w ative coit there. it w prettrt. there were active e o ow, with t orofits tu, it wt like it w waee. ttinca

wit o tity th bei wo erl ct

>> i jt i it doest i do woer if tt question t citis looi , w to oe truli ew es a orofits tt ed a ffore ce to thri ea, a >> ewoi e to wer ow the il ece o o wa me to awer how te il bece em or ow to fi new tet >> t eolio wteer o ow >> wi i t te in w we fo o out the ifrtructe of te il bin 28 we thout it w etic of to, one te o ew lee or exte exiti lee i wo4% of te ili wa ottoonth

tec it took uout fo ot to t trot trctr informioof t ili tt time we e toonth tet tice we wot reew teir te we h few ete ot rent we det wit th then tet w teir lees exired teir tec exre there waone ce erir le e to ie oor ine fi mont free ret we did wee t wn to the e we two tet reiin the r t gentlem w talkinot c th of te i te o ise with t project everodwain for of te oject em of e tere fference i little it

of lo trltio t th how we ot o low we felt it wa eticl of to p tet ito teiallerouil >> t you coisoner toii coisoner toii if o e in o of te ili look dowrk street fro ove, pticularl nit tit i o ee w tiful tee ili ca a mof te e fall ioo irer it rell ertei to e th tis oi to e oricly rehilited we omet simil witthe chrocle ildinfrter wn, ittedly it tion oit too wic w a fferent ittiot te retorethe tto rt theye a goojowit the om otel w etioefore

we ove the cit ceter whever t ne of tt thin is whicis a loc lf b it totlly iffere im, of course, since it retail ito, i ow ow of the ili lon there i thin tri to do oe iroeet well -there'en sller effort eecill on ixt reet, the io cfe wic i' beeto a cole of tie cat el t ti tt ople comin ere eetll will woe loc ow fi tt lce i e cole of tecical qio for te rcitect. if you could aer them for ju o of crioity te lters othe exterior, re theterrcot

t >> t crret oe tere re two ty oe t te corer one in betwee te e the i etween t the ones etwee te re ca iro the ones at te ee re toe we are not se of te e of one. wel to fi ot >> tere ot lot of ct iron here, o t interein >> e >> wiow rvey e o oe the wiow re >> we not oe fll wiow sr we i il rve most e i oo coitio >> i kw th ithe coitioth ce from c., er the erit to ter if o o t 2% te ed to o c i t ow if tt w e on a st t ti oit t looked t te closel whicleto t next question, whicio whicwaise therl i termof wiow obou we're tri to encoe to keethe oe th are tere, tr to

o retrofit ie there' i ti, to of w th peoe e oi toe w, o of wico io i'encoe i re the f will worwit o closelon tt ltl fro the cornice fr e o looked t loner ltr ole eteriorioises th he co u o tt in tt teril >> we t a fll t on tt t the terial wee ed iotr loctio, ot otr ot ecerily

for approval. >> i didn't mean to sing until project sponsor out in terms of that, but i do think it begged the question, i was thinking out loud in some ways about the sessions around nonprofits and that sort of things. i just wanted to put that on the record. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. on that motion commissioner antonini.

>> aye. commissioner olagi. motion passed unanimously. >> minneapolis, why don't we take a -- madam secretary, why don't we take a >> we are now on item 17. >> good evening, planning commission. i am presenting this case. before you is a discretionary review request for a proposed vertical addition. the initial concerns are that the plans that were noticed to the neighborhood are inaccurate because they did not identify

the light well on the property and it is incompatible with the skill of the neighborhood. since the notice, they have revised the plan and provided a matching light well. there are concerns about the matching light well because it does not extend to the garage level. they would like for the fourth four to be removed. it has been revised by setting it back 15 feet from the front building wall rather than the front bay window. the department does not feel the proposed light well needs to extend to the rush level based on the logic -- the garage level based on the fact that a six- foot fence is allowed without a permit. also, that could impact building security.

as design, this project has a six football next to the neighbor -- six foot wall next to the neighbor's window, and it will be open to the sky. the dr filer removed the eaves covering the light well, which will provide them more light. this generally allows buildings to be one story taller than adjacent neighboring structures, with the taller element set back 15 feet. this building is flanked by two 3 story buildings. for-story buildings are not necessarily appropriate on the entire block. they are reviewed on a case by case basis. this is a four-story building

that would be appropriate. under conditions pending legislation, this process would not be referred to the commission as this project is not aimed to create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. our recommendation is do not take discretionary review and approve. president miguel: thank you. dr requestor? >> good evening. my name is don watson. i and my wife have lived on the downhill side of 940 elizabeth street. we are the applicants for

discretionary review on this project, but we represent over 30 neighbors who oppose the project as it now stands. you can see by the photos that because of the steep grade our house is almost a full floor below the house next door. that means that our first floor is almost at the same level as their proposed garage. . it is a victorian cottage that had an addition built behind it in 1979. the front remains pretty much the same as it was when it was built. the project before you would essentially demolishes this and expand horizontal lee and vertically to create a structure on four levels, larger than any other single family house on the block. it is too massive to have any continuity with the rest of the neighborhood. we ask you to consider our goals -- to preserve a historic,

valuable 1899 victorian cottage to remove the proposed fourth level, to set back the third level, and to provide a good neighbor and white weld that extends to the bottom of all the windows in our adjacent light well. i present to you four exceptional circumstances. first, the 1899 cottage has historic value. our neighborhood is made up of many victorian and edwardian houses. this cottage has historic value both to the city and to our neighborhood. it should be preserved. other vintage houses in the neighborhood have been remodeled in the original was preserved, thus contributing to the enigmas of the neighborhood. it was our understanding at the

time that in the 1979 remodel project it was allowed to be built 12 feet into the green zone as a trade off in order to keep the victorian cottage intact. we remember this well because there was strong opposition to the intrusion. there has been no other exterior construction on this site. we find it difficult to comprehend why the planning department to take a position that the victorian cottage has been too compromised to warrant historical value. four-level houses have been denied by city planners. developers have been persuaded to not apply for a four-level renovation on this block because it is not in continuity with the rest of the neighborhood. the 900 block of elizabeth street is one of the steepest in the city. it is on a hill that has a 25%

grade. that fact is an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance which should be taken into consideration when evaluating the size and height of proposed building projects on our block. last, the good neighbor light well should allow light and air to all of the windows in an adjacent wall. that is the purpose of a good neighbor light well. much of this light well is above our house. this would leave our bathroom and bedroom in perpetual darkness. i asked an architect to draw the footprint as if it descended into the garage area, and i do not know why it is an issue with the sponsors. they could still park two vehicles side-by-side in their

garage. there is a light well that does not fulfil the function of a good neighbor light well. we respectfully suggest the answer should be no. as proposed in this plan, when we look out our first floor window, we will be facing a wall that extends nearly to the top of our window. i have provided you with reasons to justify it acceptance of our discretionary review application. we and our neighbors ask you to consider revising the sponsor's plan. thank you. president miguel: speakers in favor of the dr? those of you who are in favor of the discretionary review application, up one by one.

-- come up one by one. >> mr. president, commissioners, my name is david burness and have lived on the same block of elizabeth street since 1971. the 900 block at the time when we moved in was unique and special and one of the 10 steepest in the city. steps all the way up. a variety of cottages and houses, different in period and style set back from the property line set back with large sidebars. none with more than three levels and most only two levels. it was a street that possessed a unique and special character. since that time, there has been some change. as neighbors, we accept change.

some changes have been very successful. these are cases where designers and architects had neighbors review the drawings before they finalized them. for example, at 9678, they made a structure. at 939 an old victorian cottage was expanded and a garage inserted very sensitively. others have had negative impact on the quality of the neighborhood. the earliest was the one which has just been discussed where the developers at the time allowed to build a characterless box behind the cottage that was to be preserved. more recently, 925 elizabeth was permitted a very large addition much to the dismay

of the neighbors. the character is substantially intact. most of the valley is zoned rh- 2. this does not take into account important differences in typography, history and in the neighborhood character. the 900 block is a good example. the proposed scheme for reconstruction is not appropriate to the historic character of this block. it is too tall. it should be no more than three levels. it has more square feet than any other residents on the street. its architectural character is a question mark at this time. i urgently request that you facilitate quality over quantity. please do not ratify this scheme as presented. thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is cathy willen. i support the discretionary review. i believe this project has serious issues which should be corrected. my home is 939 elizabeth street which is directly across the street from the subject property. i am an architect and oversaw the remodel project for our own residents, which is one story over a garage. the problems i see are as follows. the light well on the east side should be extended to the 940 elizabeth basement level. this will bring it down to the main level window at the home affording the continuing light and air to their bathroom and bedroom. this item should be non- negotiable.

the planning department should insist on this as a matter of course. the proposal is for a four story building in a neighborhood of two and three story residences. the building should be no more than three stories tall two stories over a basement which is equal to or greater than most stories on the block. most homes on this block are only one story over a garage. there is only one four storey residents on the block. when the vertical addition to that building was complete, the neighbors were dismayed by how out of character it turned out to be. its lack of sensitivity to its surroundings galvanized the neighborhood into actively working to prevent future projects from being so out of place. third, the height is proposed to be level with the height of the adjacent uphill home at 946

instead of stepping down the hillside. this disrupts the profile of the street front and is even more disruptive of the profile as seen from the neighbors to the north. the proposed building should be shorter. it should be no higher than the average of the adjacent homes on either side. on a street as steep as this the setback does not mitigate the excess height, as the extra level is readily visible from many angles. i would also like to note that since this building is directly across the street from my home which is only one story over a garage, i will review the results on a daily basis. this project will result in a loss of street parking. there is street parking only on the north side. at present, there is no driveway for 1940. the curb space in front of it can accommodate four cars.

after the garage is completed, there will be a loss of two on- street parking spaces. i urge you to review the discretionary application. thank you for your time. >> my name is carol robinson. i am speaking to support the discretionary review application. i have lived in 926 elizabeth street since 1973. it is a house of two stories over a basement and it has adequately accommodated a growing family. i have walked to my office on 24 street and i see similar or smaller homes. i have two issues regarding the proposal. i am concerned with the height of three stories over a garage.