property, it's not a peak roof but the barrel vaulted roof. they had actually cut back part of the walls so rather than touching down at both ends and the front they had not had a touchdown at the roof. so they had to fail a revision permit to correct that and then it was then compliant with the height limit requirements in how we measure height. you know, i have great appreciation for the concerns that are raised here about design. however, we have to apply the planning code uniformly across the city. we have to measure height uniformly across the city, especially when it comes to the rh1d zoning districts, the height is further reduced to 35 feet. there was a reason for that in the code. you know, there still can be an allowance for 4 stories, it's not that you can't have 4 stories in 35 feet, it's just that you have to have more tapered roof form.

that's a summary of my arguments and i'm available for any questions the board may have. >> mr. sanchez, if the rear of this property was higher than the street curb, he would be able to go 35 feet from a midpoint, right, across the lot? that would establish an envelope that is parallel to the slope if it's higher in the rear. >> i think there are a couple important points. if the rear property line is 20 feet or more higher than the front, then the 35 foot height limit doesn't aplay and you are back to the 40 foot height limit. also in the planning code, the definition of height and how to measure height on up sliping lots it actually follows grade. so if this wasn't a flat lot, if it was an upsloping lot, yes, they could arguably have more flexibility in having a

taller building. it would be easier it accomplish a 4 story building. the base and the level may be slightly below grade at the rear but if it's an upsloping lot either 20 feet or more, it follows grade so it would be a little bit easier to build a taller building. >> mr. sanchez, your discussion both in your papers and today suggests that this 35 foot limit is an absolute limit. there's no portion, et cetera. but how does then 260 factor into it? how do you apply 260 to 261? >> i think we could probably use the example here. so in this case we would say you can still use that averaging and so they are using averaging to calculate the height here, it's going to be above the 35 feet. however, if this roof form

were to extend further down we would take the average from here to here and it would then be at the height limit. >> where you are pointing, is that the height, the maximum height. >> the height limit is the dashed line here. >> yeah, but when you are doing your example. >> if they were to extend -- in this case we would say the height of this roof would be measured by the average essentially of this point and this point. so this would be the height of the building. then for the other portion which does have the roof line that extends further down, the height would be taken at the lower point an the higher point and averaged out, in which case it does comply with the height limit. i guess my -- honestly i have concerns about how not this project or future projects could manipulate the height limit requirements in the planning code. the height

limit requirements are one of the dearest requirements in the planning code. that is why no portion, in looking at this second, even though it is only a segment of the roof, they have one longer portion and one shorter portion, the shorter portion as measured by the planning code is above the height limit. i don't see how we can allow the roof at that point. >> so when you say the longer portion and the shorter portion, you are -- because i heard the appellant talk about your analysis use ago two-roof analysis. to what extent is the argument that if you were to fill in that sort of gap space could he have, could they use that one -- could they still operate with the height they would like to have without the gap? those are kind of two questions but i was trying to follow the argument and how you would respond to that.

>> let me get to look at actually the roof plan. while more than half the width of the lot is dedicated to this full height or full length pitched roof, there is this portion here and we're saying it's this portion only that does not comply with the height limit. they could revise the roof form for this portion of the building, try to make it comply with the height limit. but they have not done so. so it's uniquely, this portion, the eastern portion of the building which does not comply with the height limit as measured under the planning code because --. >> oh, i thought it was the highest point for the non-compliance part. >> the highest point --. >> oh, i was looking at it differently. >> this has a forerun so this portion here when you average the high point and the low point, it complies with the height limit. but this portion when you take the high point and the low point, it doesn't

comply with the height limit. so that's a concern we have. >> that's what you meant by referencing two roofs, two portions of the roof. >> this portion does not comply with the height limit. >> okay. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> my name is brian gem. i'm not an engineer, architect by any means. i'm the son of the property owner at 595 which is adjacent to this property. in looking at his model here it is inaccurate and also during the december 8, 2011

meeting, he had drawings that were inaccurate also. this just comes to a point where it's like this just doesn't make sense at all. during the meeting december 8, 2011, he had our two buildings touching. but clearly from the outside you can walk around 595 marina and if you just looked at it, you can see they're not touching at all. secondly, he had the drawings of 3 windows on their property but if you look at the side of their building, there are no windows on our property side, i guess is what i would call it. and i'm looking at this roof and i'm saying the roof is not sloped. his roof is two levels. the back of the building i think is two stories and the front of the building is 3 stories, something to that extent. maybe i'm wrong. >> this is not existing yet. this is what they are proposing. >> okay. but that takes the whole, that takes his whole property as it currently exists

and it looked as though according to the drawing he was showing it was only the front portion of the property that was sloped. so it is appearing he's lifting up the back of the building also and then stretching it to the front, which definitely would wlauk out the sunlight and air space to our back yard. ever since that meeting we've not gotten any other notices about what's going on and now i'm finding that this is now an issue of height. it just doesn't seem right. i don't know how this process works, i don't know at all the process here, but the proposed roof now is not drawn -- i guess it's drawn accurately to what they are proposing, but as far as what it was to where it's going, it just looks wrong. this seems like that's been their intention the whole time and i'm, i don't know, i'm

frustrated with even listening to this. and i don't know if i'm for or against because this was an appellate meeting and just moving forward, can he just give us the proposed of what they want and give the neighbors notice? there's only been one notice and i don't know if there's supposed to be any more. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay, seeing none, then, mr. paul, you have additional time, 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> i'm robin steele, the property owner. ryan, i'm sorry, i think you are just a little confused about what's happening here. as you've heard, we actually have tried to engage our neighbors in this process since last december. we're extremely, extremely frustrated with the zoning administrator.

we have interrogated not less than 6 different designs, hipped roof, pitch roofs, dormers, gable roof, we've been engaging trying to come up with a design trying it take into account the comments from our neighbors, we understand that. what we're trying to do is get a plan that is approved so that we can go forward and so that we can discuss the plan with our neighbors with a section 311 notification. quite candidly, that is a single roof. it's not two roof forms, with all due respect, in our opinion. it's the cleanest, it's the most aesthetically desirable as opposed to coming up with all sorts of things it try to meet some sort of calculation. we think it's a good design and we want to work with that design with our neighbors to take into consideration their concerns. with all due respect, we

blaefrb the zoning administrator erred in the way that he's interpreting the planning code so we really respectfully ask you to find a path for us one way or another to move forward, either one roof, it's two roofs, if we do the whole thing is a one roof? we just want to get some plans that we can get approved so we can engage with our neighbors and kind of follow-up. as you can see there's frustration, we've not had any dialogue since last december, i think there's confusion about the status of the project and we just want to move ahead and build our home and work with our neighbors, be good neighbors, that's one of the reasons why you see the notch here, we're trying to preserve open space both for ourselves and our neighbors. so i think that's all i have to say. thank you. >> miss steele, i have a question for you. is the reason you want the shed roof is because you need the height on the front to get

an additional floor? >> i'm not sure i understand what you're asking. yes, i suppose, but we did come up with some other designs that the zoning administrator and his staff said would be permissible but they were quite, in my opinion, they were very tortured and they aesthetically were not pleasing, it was a design, quite candidly, that we didn't want to build. >> well, they are planners, they are not designers. >> the reality is that we don't have a master bedroom in our home. what's there is not functional, it's just the back of the lot. we're trying to get a masseter so we can see the view, enjoy the view. we're trying to be respectful of everybody. i've lived on the block in one house or

another for 10 years, lived in the marina for 30 years. absolutely trying to be respectful. but we're trying to find a path forward so we can make this house livable. it's old, it's dated, it's not functional in many respects. >> to finish up, i just wanted to make it perfectly clear as mr. sanchez has said, the portion of the roof, he has no problem with. that's this portion right here. he admits that that is, does comply with the 35 foot height limit by way of averaging. so let's make clear, things can poke up above that 35 feet when you have a sloping roof if you average it and that's all, this is all about the way this roof averaging is calculated by the height. so again like he would agree, if he would agree this works then this will work. and

we don't want to do that if we don't have to. but we can and then the department of city planning will approve this and then we can go forward with our section 311 notification, then we can have the dialogue with our neighbors that may change this again. but we can't get past this little hump if the department's approval is not here yet. please uphold our appeal. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. yes, just to clarify again about the process, the building permit was submitted in december. prayer to submitting the building permit, there's a preapplication process. that is the xhueplt outreach that the neighbor was referring to and the meeting at that point. we began our review earlier this year, gave comments back to the project architect as early as march, and i think since that time we've bun consistent in expressing how height should be measured.

and it wasn't until a few months after that that the letter of determination request was submitted, to get the matter properly before this board is a question of interpreting the planning code. we were scheduled initially for hearing in august, it was continued to this date, so we can have some resolution hopefully on this matter depending on the decision of the board, the project would be revised or go ahead as is to neighborhood notification, that's a 30-day notice to neighbors and property owners within 150 feet. there could be discretionary review at that time and after that the building permit issuance. planning section 261 is clear in that no portion of the building may exceed a height of 35 feet. there in 260 it gives a description about how to measure height and, yes, i agree that you can have portions above 35 feet when you are averaging. but the portion

of the building on the east side is above the 35 foot height limit, as is very clear in the section by the project architect. this building, at least this portion of it, is above 35 feet. they do have a court yard so it's not full coverage, full permitted lot coverage, but they are seeking to raise the maximum height of the building as well. but, again, i am available for any questions the board may have. >> mr. sanchez, based upon what the architect has indicated, actually if you do the calculation on the slope he dosment have -- does not have to have that sloping roof that's currently notched out go all the way to the property line. i think if you, i'm just doing it by eyeballing it, but

it probably could stop somewhere short and still maintain the 35 foot. >> i think that is probably correct, yes. but it depends on how they want to treat the pitch as well, but the key thing would be to have the height being no more than 35 feet when you measure from the lowest point of that roof to the highest point of that roof when averaging. thank you. commissioner, the matter is submitted. >> this is an interesting one

because most of us, when we look at height limits, we create an envelope that parallels usually the slope of the property and that's the maximum that you can get. it's also interesting because those of us who are of an older generation and the usage of shed roofs as a articulated on them was usually applied to single rooms or a portion of a building versus an entire building, although one could assume that certain new museums are using the same trick, you know, which -- not very successfully and we have one in our city. the interesting part of this is that if you look at the 3 floors that are existing, if you main continue -- maintain

a 35 foot envelope above that you can't get another floor in. it looks like it's 7 feet 6 or something like that, and it doesn't quite work for the fourth floor. and i think the architect stated, well, that probably if they took that shed roof and ran it across the entire property i think there may be not only objections from the neighbors but probably also objections from planning, you know, in terms of how they are going to look at that design. but i have a difficult time overturning what that code section says, you know. i don't think it was anticipated that that particular code

section dealt with one large shed roof versus, you know, a portion of a shed roof that only went over the living ram or something like that. >> i find it challenging to find error, although at the same time i am sympathetic because i think the design works better and only with respect to the roof, i wouldn't spaek to the entire structure because we haven't seen all that and i know there are issues with a neighbor and that's not before us anyway. but it does appear to work better. i mean i'm wondering if there's a way to design a roof for that section is

see-through, i don't know if that would even work if you could create it with a different material. okay, i'm getting the shake of the head. anyway, it is difficult to find error based on the reading of the code. but this is a difficult kind of call to make here given that that section that is open, it's almost again without speaking to the rest of the structure or the design, does appear to be acceptable. i mean if you could imagine the rest of the roof, it's almost a better -- if it is true that a whole shed that would cover the entire space would be permitted, why couldn't you just do that carve out? so it's difficult. not sure where

i'm going. >> yeah, i'm also on the fence about this one. i mean ideally the code would have been clear. i don't think it took into account this kind of situation. it's difficult because if we look at the letter of the code i think i would be in agreement with mr. sanchez. on the other hand, from a practical perspective i don't think it makes sense to follow the letter of the law. i really don't, i'm undecided still. >> i guess i feel that you have to go with the code. >> well, you know, i might suggest something to the property owner and their architect. there is nothing

magical about the width of the portion of the shed that goes the full length. if you choose to make that wider to accommodate your higher volume spaces that you need, whether it's a bedroom or a living room, and utilize the other portion of it for your support spaces like bathrooms and storage, it could be at a lower level without a shed roof across the entire property. but that's just a suggestion that you are free to come up with whatever you like. >> yes, okay, quickly. >> it would help if you clarified for me where it says in the code that this is to be considered as two roofs versus one roof, if there is something in the code other than what you have seen because it seems to be fairly sichl and straightforward.

but if you feel that somehow mr. sanchez' determination is correct in interpreting the code, then can you also verify that his interpretation would stand then if we make a large roof over the whole, sloping roof over the entire 35 feet from front to back is he that we get the average like that so that we can go forward with our section 311 notification. >> i think he's already indicated should you choose to make that shed roof across the sbair property. >> i did not hear that. he still maintains there's something magic about the 35 feet that you can't poke up above the 35 feet. >> okay, why don't we hear from mr. sanchez, please. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. it real estate pete what i said in my rebuttal, you can have portions. raf above the 35 foot height limit, it's a

matter of averaging. i blaefrb if they had a full width shed roof as long as the points measured out correctly and it was an average 35 feet, it would comply with the planning requirement. this is purely looking at the height limit and it would be code compliant for the height limit but it with still need other review. it's not as if he does the full width shed raf that wae would automatically send out the 311. the planning department still has it look at it and make a determination what we can support on that project. >> commissioners, i'm prepared to move to uphold the letter of determination. >> that's on the basis of lack of error or abuse of discretion? >> that's correct. >> call the roll, please.

>> we have a motion from the vice president to uphold this letter of determination on the basis of lack of error on the part of the zoning administrator. on that motion, president hwang, aye. commissioner. commissioner lazarus. >> the vote is 4 to zero and the vote is upheld. >> i'd like to take a short break, please. >> okay. (brief recess)