grant. in following the filing of dr request and found the street scale to be comparable with the neighborhood character and the rdt requires the architecture skyline to be consistent, however, the rdt expressed some concerns with the roofline and requested that the project be reduced on the glass facade and to cap the flat roof they found the project to be two constrained detailing that the street facade needed foreshadowing the project sponsor responded to the plans that are before you today, the rdt look at the reduced windows and a metal roof cap and found

them to be consistent with the residential guidelines it's the departments position that the project does not contain that extraordinary situations and questions they approve the project >> thank you dr requester. >> i'm david burns i'm going to try to put a slide up for you. good >> thank you. i'm david burns one of the owners on belgrade avenue across the street we've lived in our homes for 25 years and during those years we've

seen an arch love of change we've supported change the slide is founded on page had the middle is the original application designed the design proposed was some of the architecture style that is existing. the one hundred 35 street face is narrow less than 17 feet wide and the plans calls for an increased side to bring that into harmony with the residential guidelines leslie said they've understood our plans with the planning department. but we didn't get the we didn't have any conversations with them

in march 2014 we received the new project which is the skin. >> on the far right. and i said it's a new project for two reasons first some of the materials they've sent us to said no project and second the building envelope changes the overall facility increased the upper up window became a 13 feet bay window with an in your deposition bay glass donates twice the size of the one in june. the bay window is a clear architecture feature of the remodel it appears top-heavy the window looks stuck on the facade and the architect said it was not addressed. the fines went ahead with the new project and explicit pull another neighborhood outreach

and doesn't have a vesting process. even with that complete change of direction we wanted to see if we could work with them to move the project in inclines with the residential guidelines because we wanted to support them. the fines rejected our plan we asked the planning department why no new preapplication process the response was we gait was the changes were minor and didn't need a reapplication meeting i asked the planning department how to get the planning code and the guidelines they filed the dr you've heard earlier there was conversations with the residential design team and i'm going to put up another

slide. can you read that okay. i'll walk you through that. the top are the residential design team memo. and stating from the things we have in our passage the mid comment from sharon was that our dr promoted the residential design team memos. so when we filled the dr it had merit it was not frustrate also, we found a minor height violation on the front of the building that's contained in inhabits 10 and 11. the when we looked at the belgrade it is i can't remember

electric with the multiple sign styles we agree with that but the bay windows a integrated so but your request we're asking you to return this project to the residential design team that the pages 34 through 43 and 45 are the residential guidelines are not met and the project sponsors work with the design team okay. that's my time >> okay. thank you speakers in support of the dr. >> hi, i'm deborah i live at

one hundred 40 belgrade i sport in dr i don't believe the plan that in inclines there were changes and the dr has merit but we don't feel the changes meet the rdt memos so cut to the chase what's been extraordinarily and exceptional about the project one we have a hard time understanding how the envelope i'm going to use this projector will this automatically come on? i have a hard time understanding how the envelope didn't change distinct the two designs before the project on the topping was shown to the neighborhoods and we feel this is a bait-and-switch and second there

are two rdt memos that came in after the dr was filed. and the others thick the defense lawyers were not put into the files until after the dr passage was submitted. the thirds thing in terms of the rdt they completely agree with the points we've made in the dr. they said the windows were two massive and didn't scale to the neighborhood and not comparable with the neighborhood. and we think the fact we think it's xoifrld extraordinary there were two memos submitted with you the project doesn't comply we're not opposed to ramsz or the project we've actually tried to find ways to support the

project and made suggestions how to bring this project into experience with the rdt our concern it is massive window that stuck out if the window were scaled back it would fit into the neighborhood we believe that reducing the windows that will be in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and echo other design elements in the structure and one of the characteristics this agency hard to see exhibit 4 in our book one of the characteristic they have repeating elements and the architect this didn't fittest earth of the house or the neighborhood or the scale of the house or the may be. when we express concerns to the project sponsors about that oh, i'm out of time

>> thank you. >> any other speakers in support of the dr. requester then project sponsor please. >> i'm leslie fine one of the owns thanks for taking the time i know i anybody exhausted before greg talks i want to give some human contact you've family is a continuous ownership since our house as evolved it is far more modify nearly 3 years ago we begin the process expanding and morenoing the sacrificing space for our family it's hard to balance the growing family

with the will neighborhood personality we've simpleminded our plans to the neighborhood we've had ad hoc and scheduled with the neighborhood our architect has had 57 redesigns we've got a close-knit street we've met with every he neighborhood and advances the hearing centered around the drawings to my knowledge everyone approves the project you'll see a large envelope of letters both the neighbors up and down the street one of them opposed our project and now revokely is support working on the design changes meant to be address their concerns we've spent a lot of time working with the planning department and i won't glow the variances.

as parties discussions the project has evolved this our current home in a photograph taken this morning >> you see those images to some stent here's the original submission with at the proposed meeting we've actually put the home to one height with a peek of 72 and a half feet and modernized the windows after the dr requester we are eliminated the chimney and added a bay window and to relieve a monolithic condition the roof is of and a half feet lower and four and a half foot lower than the original proposal and we have made other modifications

there's one thing clear they don't reflect only my interpretation but their own and this is the defense lawyers interpretation of their own guidelines. >> i'm greg working with the fines and architect jennifer i'll try to be brief if he could have the graphics i'll briefly run through you through the neighborhood context the rectangle in the top photos shows the subject property and likewise to the west. it is a highly mixture neighborhood as mr. levincy pointed out there's a mix of styles over the decades pitched and flat and a bunch of styles this is a mixed character

neighborhood. here's some close ups that shows some variety. and our late proposal in the lower right-hand side corner this is the project before you. the design guidelines compliance is contrary the rdt has looked at this project what matters is the earlier memo it's the final memo after we've made the revision they've fully supported the project those are their comments that explain their position of how this fits the neighborhood. the dr questioning requester buildings this has too much glazing in the more homes with the glazing in our proposal and

finally you saw a graphic presented in our packet in which they inserted a render this was out of scale with the actual proposed size of the building and not only that they modified the architects rendering without letting with leaving here name other than that, which - >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> dr request any speakers in support of the project sponsor and dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal. >> this one this decision for us is a personal like or dislike the personality that is a guideline for the discovery

during the process what is exiled as deborah said the project shown to the community the original design is drastically different than the with an that went actually to the planning department. and the bait-and-switch on the second meeting that wasn't vested with the neighborhoods is residential design team confirmed our information and we didn't get the information until july 28th we had had the information earlier we could have look ated this differently and had a better conversation about the upper windows >> thank you. project sponsor rebuttal >> yeah. if we could have the graphic back again, please.

commissioners, i wanted to show you here is the exaggerated scale in this this is the base photo this is the existing home one thing that's not changing is the garage doors super imposed is the defense lawyers requesters insertion of the reminding that's outer of scale you see the garage door both the size and location that actually this rendering on this scale would look like that presented within the green box there arrest not this. this. finally you've heard a reference to a minor height violation that's total superbus. i have animated graphic interests part of the proposed building you see shied in red.

the roof height didn't apply to perpetuity walls this project is totally compliant in conclusion this updates a home or the modern use of the son and the builder and family it if doesn't increase the footprint comparable with the neighborhood and complies with the d g and has planning staff and the r dj support and going to grant the europe side additions and the planning review has been complete it's been repeating verified and there are expectation for extraordinarily

circumstances we ask you not take the discretionary review >> commissioner moore i have a question could you describe to me the typical procedures when the project is in the dr and goes to the design review team and didn't typical does not go back to the neighborhood. >> not back to the neighborhood typically no, but upon the filing of dr it's the presidential so there's basically a bait-and-switch it's an adequate description this is what you typically do with all drs. >> yes. all drs go to the rdt we look at the rdt concerns and

we go through those and discuss over and over one by one. this it margs makes that easy for me because the residential design team comments have indeed have decisions that are lower and the massive bone structure is what it is and by bringing it into a chapter category given we are in a mixed neighborhood and the illusions and slarlt and from my prospective no dr concerns we should take this is an architecture that is completely a statement within what we already see and in different additions in the neighborhood i'll be prepared to

make to not take a dr and approve the project >> is that another motion. >> donates a motion yes and commissioner weithorn. >> yes. i'm supportive i find it odd that the final pursuit is so much different than when we saw a year ago which why we lost the roof that fits in better with the neighbors property and the very contemporary one i'm not sure how those things happened whether the staff told them or they changed it on their own i'd kind of like to know. >> commissioner antonini i think commissioner moore hit the nail on the head the basic bones of the building are the 1930s bell house kind of thing plan

unadorned white walls and the hip roof that was oefrj on it is it a stylistic anomaly that violates the month activists design and putting a float roof makes it complete and harm news. >> yeah. sure. so often; right when your machined a canning constraint when we designed the house with the pitch roof as was mentioned we heard a lot of concern from our neighbors and one was the offer height of the building it was raising the roof so we spent a couple of months to achieve what we needed to do it what

would happen if we flattened it and now we brought the roof down four and a half feet and eliminated the chimney seemed like the right thing to do. it was not beyond the height limit it was a question of some neighborhood complaints about the height of the building anyway, i understand how it happened i don't find anything extraordinarily to take dr on a i liked the other than >> commissioners there's a motion and second arrest commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya and congresswoman >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes you unanimously 68 to zero and places you on item 19 ab for

case at 1055 request for discretionary review and the zone requester will consider a consider for this. >> the property is on ashbury street a discretionary review has been filed a construction of a 3 story residents on a vacant lot the discretionary review revolves around the views protection of views and impacts of privacy and as a proposed project will offer development the sub standard lot of design team didn't see that rose to a level of extraordinarily circumstances and the last dr discretionary review discussion 0 resolves around the depth of the rear yard the zoning

administer is conducting a variance meeting for the rear yard. at this time the staff recommends you not take discretionary review and two points there are about 7 letters of support in support and 7 in opposition to the project if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. dr requester. >> so i'm dave ryan the dr requester. >> could you speak into the microphone please. could you turn around slightly and it did swivel. i'm going to go through the history back in the fall of 2013

ash being sure or burger was place for sale they were specified to be sold together because the lot at the back was substandard and there was a problem building anything building someone know beyond the gorgeous or garage the project sponsor acquired the rear lot in march 2009 the deed of trust christopher shows the representatives from the sponsor to a certain christopher in 2013{in may are last year the project sponsor contact me i invited him on to my property he was a construction engineer sea done multiple properties on 4 of avenue, etc. and claims to be a expert witness in many cases and

promised to be incentive to the neighborhood and my wife's concerns i give him a tour of the property and the history only the properties on the substandard lot and suggested he acquired 1018 clay ton street as specified by the original sellers on on june the second the project sponsor architect brought plans to my property the architect said he'd done numerous promotions, however, the plans reflect our concerns we gave to them the definite heights were excessive and extensive concerns including arm elevator in the rear set back we

requested clayton more expedite to build a garage that existed in the rear the project sponsor additional to, incentive in the meantime, based on the balk ever requests for our concerns i not to the c ic i got a dim saying the rear of the rear yard was to be nor longer that the others property. they held a meeting and the biesh lee library we reiterated our concerns they rereiterated their concerns and july 15, 2013, that was unknown to me the folks wanted to have an arrangement this lot is a corner

lot to be the intersection between downey precedes, however, numerous dmfgsz between myself and scott it was discovered that is planner had the project sponsor withheld facts this information is not disclosed at the time he looked at the conditions there's been huge opposition from the neighborhood we've got signature of a petition over 50 signatures opposing this project so in summary i want to deny the variance those being a blatant i cannot fearful indication of the facts the va is well aware you have that and lacks justification there's a excessive impact do the which a ton street and air there's

insignificant opposition and broad opposition to the variance. in terms of the dr i'm suggesting or requesting that the plastic bags be updated to add the dr neighborhood you'll here more details as we go through the speakers here i believe there are 8 speakers there's an extensive impact to the roofline and the street air and a sixth owner opposition and owner opposition to the bulk height and width >> there maybe questions later and asking for speakers no support of the dr i have a bunch of speakers