-- the only access to the yard is through the basement. i work hard and would like to come home and have weekends to be able -- this would allow me to get a cup of coffee and to sit in my backyard and read the newspaper. just trying to improve the house. commissioner fung: my last question would be the floor level at the kitchen is lower than the floor level at the bedroom? >> that is correct. >> i understand and appreciate you giving us this sort of background on the efforts to try to not be here today. i'm wondering if, and i u nderstand you have put a lot

into the design of your deck. you you believe their libyan opportunity for you to have another set down -- sit down and work that peace out? >> yeah. i would be still willing to talk about it, i just don't feel like it should be imposed. >> i understand. president garcia: not that we necessarily would impose it, but what is the current proposed size of the screen that they are asking for? you have to come to the microphone. >> we have simply presented

their representation with the idea that they could decide what size dimensions. we were not trying to dictate any particular dimensions. it was just within a reasonable period. at most, nine feet wide, probably closer to six. the two posts are probably no more than 36 inches apart and high enough that a warrior would not be able to look into the window. >> the current window is 36 and the proposal was 4 feet beyond that. so 7 ft. >> i know my house, i looked at three apartments. my neighbors watch me eat dinner with my entire family.

it is part of living in the city. i agree that this happens in urban environments, we see any others windows. there are ways to fix it. there is frosted glass, but i think this is part of living in the city. having space kind of adjacent to your neighbors and seeing them garden. i don't necessarily -- i don't think the bars -- it seems there is a three-foot gap. >> is there anything further from the department? president garcia: the matter is submitted. >> icn opportunity for the parties to have a sit-down.

every time i heard the appellant speaker, i heard you're referring to mr. hills out of some level of deference that he is the architect and designer. i think from what you just represented, i got the sense that you haven't carved out the specificity to present a clear- cut proposal today anyway. it sounded more generic. >> may i respondd to that? >> sure. >> i did not impose a 24 hour deadline, the code did. if i could have given her 24 days, i would have been happy to do that. >> you could've had a continuance agreement -- >> the appeal had to be filed

within the 15 days, but there can be ongoing discussions beyond that. >> i appreciate your point. >> there would be every reason for the parties to continue even after the appeal was filed to sit down. that was over three weeks ago. we have not heard a word from mrs. carlton in the interim. perhaps she got back up, quite understandably, that we were forcing the issue. it was the code that required us to appeal. we are quite willing to continue to talk. >> it sounds like both parties are willing to have further discussion. did i hear that correctly? >> i feel like it got beyond discussion and into a document indicating the size of the

design. >> are you willing now to engage in further discussion? yes? i would suggest and to move unless i hear differently from my fellow commissioners to give the parties this opportunity by continuing this matter. president garciacommissioner f d like to make a couple comments. you know, the planning department and those that indicated the size of the project is not substantial. it just imposes a slightly different orientation and

geometry to the spaces in between the buildings. i am not so much concerned about the security aspects, but i think that the permit holders should put a screen wall. i would make that screen wall at right angles withich is what commissioner hwang was leading to. i would make it match the length of the window. saying that if we're going to continue, that is the position i would be taking. hopefully it will act as some type of framework for the discussion. president garcia: if i match the size of the window, you mean if it is 4 feet wide or 3 feet

wide, you would want to scream to be 3 feet wide? commissioner fung: the length of the window is 6 feet or something like that. each window is 3 feet. ok. going to the length of the window with the screen and make it six feet high. president garcia: i don't mean to keep the discussion going, but it is pretty meaningful, the point made by mr. hills, the architect. if it's three feet wide, the vantage point is almost as great looking into the window as if you were directly in front of the window and there were no screams. i am not saying that to be

disagreeable. i thought that before we had discussions, i think the security issues is out. i don't think it will be allowed by dbi. you can fix the window and that would increase security. it seems as though the third point had to do with grain and water intrusion into the broader has been stipulated that it not only will be done -- it is something reasonable that can be done for this project.

i will go on with the suggestion that it be a three-foot screen. i will go along with commissioner hwang's suggestion that we delay this and let further discussion take place and i look forward to hearing from commissioner hillis. >> not that i haven't enjoyed my time here at my first meeting, but i think it would be great to come to a solution. that is where i would go to, a screen of that size. we can stipulate that it is a 3 foot screen, 6 feet high. i think that is where we will get eventually anyway. president garcia: i am sure the

architect knows what we mean, do you need clarification on what we might be imposing? >> i am not sure where the 3 foot screen came. that is not what we are proposing. we are proposing that it be a least two posts wide, at least six or seven feet minimum. it wouldn't be a three-foot -- >> we understand. that's not what i was proposing. i'm proposing that the screen occur at a right angle here to the edge of where your window stops. that is what i am proposing.

i am proposing that you put a screen here to the edge of the window. it doesn't matter, it is the length of it that matters that go to the edge of the window. president garcia: somehow you have to get it on the overhead, commissioner fung. >> the screen that is perpendicular to the window, you get that you now from their kitchen window. that view is there. i propose just a three-foot screen in front of the window. >> i don't think that cuts it.

i was asking the question earlier, they were clarify the proposed screen, i said it did not make sense. commissioner fung makes more sense. >> that's fine, they did not ask for that. >> i understand, we are just trying to make a situation that seems to work from our perspective. president garcia: and do you understand what form it will take? do you want it straightened out before you make your comment as to exactly what form it is going to take? >> i would like to see what you have in mind before we comment. president garcia: mr. hills understand it and he can explain in on the overhead so that we all understand. >> it's perpendicular but an l-

shape. take my proposed screen, shorten the to the width of the window and impose another 90 degrees green to the kitchen side of the lukien bedroom window. that would be perfectly acceptable if the extension to the rear was at least another 36 inches. it is almost meaningless to miss carlton, but very important to us, but the concept is acceptable. president garcia: what is taking place right now as a compromise. it is beyond the point where amistad gets to -- we want you to understand what is being proposed, but we are not asking for your approval for what we are proposing. we are not as interested in what you want.

-- disinterested in what you want. >commissioner fung: we are not normally so draconian in our approach. the way it was proposed before doesn't make any sense to me. for privacy purposes. president garcia: that is why is ai said i thought it would be directly reasonable to have a screen that is perhaps a little wider than your client's screen. perhaps make it five feet where you have a foot on either side and 6 feet high just so that psychologically, there is not someone standing directly -- or with vantage point, it will continue to exist. >> just to follow up on that,

based on what the appellants were saying earlier, i don't think there was an understanding that people in the kitchen could actually see into the bedroom and that maybe the reason for the proposal. i did not address that viewpoint that i think the 90-degree screen with addressed -- would address. commissioner fung: if you stand in the corner, you are closer than anywhere else. >> i would do the screen. i did the red mark on there, those are my red marks. i would do the 90 degrees and the 3 ft. covering the window and maybe one additional foot. i don't know what the bars are, i'm shooting in the dark here.

that is why i would much prefer if the parties worked out. >> we are agreeable to continue to talk. >> i see them shaking hands, they would rather have it imposed on them. >> is the construction site that has been stopped. we begin building again. -- need to get building agian. ain. our permit was issued, we started construction. they have preliminary excavations -- perhaps it is a misunderstanding on the permit holders park your imposing --

president garcia: my feeling is, it was important. at this point, if the other commissioners don't want to agree, i personally am strongly inclined to uphold the sperm that because it is a reasonable and small design, reasonable vantage point into the window. we know we can't oppose -- as we know we can't impose security. it is not really an issue. those are my feelings, and i am

therefore against continuing this. if we can't agree on something small that they will agree to, i personally am going to vote to uphold the permit as is. >> before motions are made, i hear and i heard mr. hills, what you said about wanting to proceed with the construction and i recognize that. but maybe one week, there is a meeting set for one weekend i am not going to be here. maybe we can continue in for one week and give you the opportunity to knock it out. >> i think i may hvave been misunderstood. it will help with security, but it has behalf openable -- it has to be openable from the

inside. president garcia: i understand. it would give them added protection. >> he would not be able to get in there. i wanted to correct that. >> they can't put railing to the outside of the window. >> with a continuance of one week to be acceptable -- >> we are willing to take a 10- minute break to see if you can

solve this problem. and you're not coming out here a week from now. >> those are my two options? >> if you don't take the 10 minutes, i dunno what you have to lose by that. >> you heard commissioner garcia. if the others don't agree on condition or approach, we can't condition the permit. >> sure. we'll take ten minutes. >> ok. >> we are resuming the board of appeals meeting for february 8, 2012. we will hear from the architect for the permit holder. >> i think we have reached an agreement on the dimensions of

an alternating lattice rather than a -- 4 feet, 6 inches wide by 7 feet tall, parallel to the property line, not perpendicular. >> and we're withdrawing request for conditions one and three. we will meet at a later date if there are any water intrusions as a matter of law. the great over the window, we have procured the private agreement on that so we are not asking that it be made a condition of the grant of the permit tonight. president garcia: we are upholding the permit as is? >> decondition. >> this has been cleared through planning and dbi?

there are no issues with notice requirements, anything like that? >> i would want to make sure that it is properly supported. if it is freestanding, it will have to be based off of the perpendicular wall. just making a condition on that. president garcia: thank you. >> no issues? ok. i'm just concerned we be as specific as we need to be so the conditions permit, if that's what the board decides to do, is clear for everyone including dbi that needs to enforce it. is there a rendering of this

proposal? president garcia: it never showed up on the overhead. >> overhead, please. please jump in if ims characterizing the intent here. this type of last -- if i'm mis characterizing the intent here. this type of lattice, above the floor of the deck. commissioner fung: starting at the core of the new deck. >> to this point right here. if i'm mischaracterizing this, please let me know. president garcia: where is it positioned on the deck as you travel from one end to the other? commissioner fung: i don't think

it matters. does it start at this corner? president garcia: that is what i am asking, where it starts and finishes. >> starting -- i think the language would read starting -- the language could read, " starting 3 inches from the edge of the subject window parallel to the property line traveling a distance of 4 feet, 6 inches bel." commissioner fung: i think that locates it. >> how high? >> seven feet tall. >> i would like to have that

marked and submitted so we can use as reference. it doesn't have to be attached to the notice, but a reference for the file. commissioner fung: accepting the appeal, granting the appeal on condition -- can i make the motion? president garcia: please do. commissioner fung: commissioners, i will move that we accept and condition the permanenit that a privacy screen wall, 7 feet high be added to the deck starting at a 0.3 inches from the edge of the existing -- at a point three inches from the edge of the

existing appellant's window and extending to the edge of the deck. i said seven feet atll. -- tall. and of a lattice type detail. president garcia: that as architectural lattice. >> we will base it on the exhibit. commissioner fung, can we base that on the exhibit submitted by the parties that hearing? -- at hearing? and that this is an agreement reached by the parties? commissioner fung: yes. thank you folks for working that out. president garcia: before we call the roll -- >> i'm sorry, i know this has to end. the key word is alternating

lattice. it's not a wall. >> i will re-read it before we finish this. so the motion, then, is to grant this appeal, upholding the permit, conditioning the permit. the condition is a privacy screen of alternating lattice with dimensions of 4 feet 6 inches in width, 7 feet in height. this is parallel to the appellants property line. beginning 3 inches from the appellant's -- is that the west? >> the bedroom window. commissioner fung: there is no north on the drawing. >> beginning at the point of three inches from the street-

side edge of the appellant's window with the finding that this is in agreement between the parties. >> we do the length and height? >> i can repeat it again. four feet, six inches in width. seven feet tall. >> look at the city attorney when you do that, she was the one not paying attention. >> perfect. i will repeat it one last time. crafty appeal on the condition that a privacy screen of alternating lattice with dimensions of 4 feet 6 inches and with by 7 feet in height parallel to the