as a result of what they did they issued a variance decision. and we talked about in our belief that there were changes in the revision four that had not been discussed by anybody we raised those concerns in our belief. way have from mr. coxs attorney an statement we can't bring up this we have to appeal the permit issuance i bring up the issuance my clients position is let's get it over with right now. let us resolve had this around the variance we can't resolve it tonight what was asked for by the planning department and not done by mr. coxs people is they suggested they present the changes to the paris.

and they didn't. they show because those plans are in and out now the plans on file. those plans for this building revision 4 is submitted? planning department and everybody who reads in the planning department's or reads the plans knows what they're proposing. those are the following problems they what this is there's an elevation and this is the paris house this is the old house from that exists right now for 3660 the christmas tree thousand house you see the tower right here. the whole development is given when you live there 60 years you get certain things the tower is way out here and the height

basically steps down the next page show what was before the planning commission and the variance what was before the planning commission was height out here or with a master bedroom and stepped up to the plate down here and there's a deck here and a roof-deck and an open space right here. what happened between revision two and 3 the entire house this is the place where the turn over say was kept at that height and extended to the paris lot line there's open space behind here and above here. all of that was removed. there is not necessarily objections to the revisions if we know what they are because

they've added a lot of other stuff. they've added solar panels that are not in the plans and the solar panels have so thickness and elevation their rattler or relevant because looking at out the window they'll be extremely visible. the paris has a view out their kitchen room and dining room window and those are right in front of that extension. the paris house was developed? mid of the lot. this project has development in the rear because they have a majestic view let's resolve how the deck is a seated the garden deck there's a lot of winds up there from any expense in living

in this neighborhood for 20 years. the mr. sanchez and extension of the deck and how this comes to their house and the extension of this house to here. or i didn't has raised issues regarding the utilities stack and he'll talk about them okay? yeah. would you like this the clock is running >> they have a identical set of exhibits. >> same as what we have. >> is it the same. >> no, i'm arne on architect i was retained to look over the plans and see if there were issues in the plans that weren't

being fully exposed that will effect their quality of life and understand what the architecture plans were were one issue it isn't on the plan you can see in the plan of they're first floor a large mechanic chase that somehow miysteries low disappeared where does that again, a 5 or 10 foot master eliminate right next week to the paris that should be on the plans if we're going to try to understand what they are building and what's the impact we've asked about it with no response and solar panels they're showing in their drawing

a roof whereas the solar panels can addressing add 23 to 4 feet of elevation they should be honestly honest about warehouse building. >> we're asking to resolve it on the variance it will get resolved if you instruct the architects and people to get together that everything might effect the height minimum request thank you. >> we can hear from the agent holders representative now ms.

barkley. >> members of the commission first of all, i need to apologize. that in my brief to you exhibit c actually was incorrect set of plans i attached the plans that was before the planning commission was, in fact, exhibit 7 that was in mr. hester's brief the reason is the difference between there are 3 sets of plan the first set is all throughout every sheet exhibit 2 is i'll let the architect explain that >> i'm brigitte with the architecture the architect for the project sponsor their sorry they couldn't come they're expecting a baby i'm here to

explain on behalf of. revision two is a set that was prepared prior to the dr and variance hearing. right before we were to submit the sue hester saw a error so we sent a surveyor out to correct it as revision 3 >> so measure the height of the existing building on the site so revision 2 a combination of a couple of sheets you'll find in sue hester's brief submitted for the appeal revision 4 that she referred to was in response to the paris concerns for the roof-deck so on the upper level

where there's a roof-deck previously in the discretionary review and the hearing there had been a roof-deck. up at this level here on top of the floor closer to the western property line so in response to that we eliminated the roof-deck and moved all the roof-deck space down to the lore level and got rid of the roofline to make it a clearing close-up we will have solar panels in line with the roof pitch. page is one to 12. the new gastroroof number one,

the green roof on portions of the building that we requires a variance they're here. the garage, and here. and as you can see from the original graphic that's over this building and over this building and this is the buildable envelope. so the green roof has nothing to do with the variance it didn't require a variance so we're not quite sure what ms. hooefs complaint with inclines of the legal requirement in this 3 so 5 c what she's complaining but and state for the record is some

kind of view blockage from of those two windows right here. over this portion of the building >> as you can see the red line representing the outline of the existing building so that portion that she's complaining about or rather her clients is complaining about a view blockage has a two-story volume right there there's not a lot of blockage as far as that's concerned the rest of her brief talked about the discretionary review which is the purpose of the special use district lighting none of that has anything to do with the variance

and she didn't point out in her brief the objection to the zoning administrators decision or where the zoning administrator did not make the correct conclusions. so if you have additional questions for the architect she's here to answer it. and i'd like to submit the correct one in the 8 and a half by 11 it's identical to mr. hester's edition

>> one to mr. hester's. >> yes. i need to put on the record i have no objections to the changes. >> ms. hester don't speak if the audience you i want to make it clear i do not obtain. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning staff. i think this project has come a long way in the year and a half since submitted and underwent the neighborhood notification last fall the discretionary review was filed additionally as a may or may not discretionary review because of the property but the planning commission heard this and did not take

discretionary review regretfully i was at the hearing but had to leave so director ram was acting da on the item but subject to that the project sponsor heard the concerns in other words, to the elements that were part of the variance as well so the revisions were suggested to the department things they will do to accommodate those concerns. and staff thought it was supportable and reviewed them and thought they remember positive changes to the project and ultimately john ram signed off on the letter it has 3 part variance with the rear yard and street variance facade i'm glad to hear the issues are not so much the issues or observations to the revised plans but rather

it seems like additional requests on the elements of the plans so this is an appeal of the variance as noted several building permits that are still needed for determining demolition and reconstruction and several structures as well the total number of permits is three or four and, you know, hopefully the matter here can be resolved through this process and eliminated through the board. to prevent any need someone needs to appeal the building permits that remain again, it sound like there are not necessarily concerns that the project given it's typography and the situations and the lot conditions does justify granting the variance was outlined in the

variance letter and see what the board has to say on the matter and mr. sanchez perhaps you could are you familiar with the changes from revision four to what was submitted previously >> yes. i believe i am. >> i take a look at it also but didn't look at it exhaustly. i might san diego with you that the roof change is related to the variance in the sense it deals with a non-conforming structure that's within the rear yard in that sense >> that's part of the variance decision this was a decision and the conditions that talk about changes that are made that are being reduced in parts and increased in parts. you know, regretfully this is not our best process permit and

variance we've ever had. you know, i take full responsibility for that i think that we saw that there had been changed we thought the changes were sufficient and asked the foreign or sponsor to discuss that further i think that conversation didn't quite happen and would have prevented an appeal tonight but now we're in the process it's clear to everyone what changes have been made and at this point what i heard from the appellant they're not net necessarily proposing the provisions >> can you then spell out what the changes were in totality in provision four from excuse me. from the submittal the

combination of 3 plus 4. >> this is one i don't see graphics that clearly illustrate that one or two pages but the rooflines were lowered in part. and there's the portion that is transverse on the lot that is the master bedroom that had a roof-deck that was opposed by the neighbor that was removed and at that time the roofline was carried across above the point where the dedicating deck was so again, it it is part of the project but overall the roof heights would have decreased but the project was reduced >> i saw that change i wasn't looking at to compare the two sets exhaustly is that the main

change nurp. >> yes. the key change is the roof-deck remove the concerns the neighbor then the change of the roofline above the bedroom portion the master bedroom portion and the height of the building toward the flat roof that decreased the height and slightly at the rear those are the main changes and perhaps the architect can talk about the changes. >> the silver panels those are not before you sthairt. >> that's an excellent point we've had a couple of solar panels appeals those are zoning approved those the case is if

they're adding the structure those are above and beyond the solar panels otherwise those would be approved regardless of the set back don't have discretion those are described as low profile and maybe those details will address the concerns. >> also laying them obligate on a relating flat roof is not efficient. >> you're absolutely correct they've improved in efficiency and being a flater plane but the standard is at an angle taking the northern latitudes i call them. >> okay any public comment on that item?

okay. seeing none we've started our rebuttal. oh, this is public comment no. we're having rebuttal which is it >> you have 3 minutes. >> just hold on is there public comment? okay >> get the image up i want you to look at the section of the building and all those great changes that be neglected by a 10 shift. >> and they reduce to put this on their drawings and all those wonderful changes obeying will be neglected by a 10 foot shaft this mechanical shift. >> they've leaving off the roof and it's disingenuousus and they not build this shaft otherwise

those great changes b will be neglected >> i'll make this quick is plans have changed dramatically they are different than presented to the planning commission. and their i don't think they care about our planning. we asked the planning commission we've also asked the people the developers we wanted to meet and talk about this and get it scared away i don't understand what's going on they have not reached out to us the city asked him asked them to we oppose it for the following reasons. as you can see they've changed the elevation of the roofline here. this is 45 feet away from our kitchen window in the 45 percent

so they're bringing this up to the 323 with the mechanic shaft they don't list the size in the plans i'd like to talk about that. i'm sure saying we wouldn't work with them they have not had an open forum. the next question they're in filing this we asked them not to this cults our view in the back 45 percent of the non-conforming lot you're not supposed to build that was set up to protect that view the next issue is the roof-deck. which is now seven hundred square feet and that will cover this area right here. so this is also going to cut

into our space i ask at this point that we think this and we ask they come back come and talk to us they're making a non-common structure worse i want to sit and asking for them to meet with us to come to a consensus by we can't if they won't get together. thank you >> ms. barkley. >> members of the board i know that - okay. this drawing which is also in the your packet illustrates what is changed from this was before the planning

commission and the zoning mist they objected to a deck over here they claim is right in front of the of the building this objection is in writing to the zoning administrator after the hearing was closed. so in response to that e-mail that they sent u.s. to the zoning administrator that further it to the client the client offer to accept conditions of the approval on the variance granted to change this deck from here to a lower level very far away from those windows so there will be no privacy issue. as far as the this pinch pitch is a one to 12 pitch they decided instead of having very

large high angle solar panels in the front part of the building this is larger a they'll put it on top of that roof to be minimal and the people directly across the street have no objection and to extend it all the way over to continue that to have the solar panel because this building is projected to go for a platinum lead certification so they want to use as much solar energy as possible. as far as the complaint about the shaft nights in the basement level it going to be a radiant

heating floor all the pipes that come out in the day and night baementd ceiling that's itself reason why it didn't go up through the second floor and into the roof >> just to clarify the shaft you see it on the second floor of the radiant floor it's not intended to be a large shaft that protrudes through the ceiling we don't want the outline of the roofline to change it is, in fact, accurate. >> thank you mr. sanchez any rebuttal. >> scott sanchez maybe i found

the two best elevations that summarizes the changes to the project and the west elevation the elevation that faces the appellant. great. well, if we didn't have closed captioning that would be easier to see but exhibit 7 this is sheet a-3.12 was considered the variance hearing there are set backs at the rear there is also the deck above the master bedroom and portions of the front has previously proposed and then i i guess it's good but 8 perhaps but the other plan

sets the revised plan sets that shows the set backs that had been here no longer existed to the property line. the deck is removed and that roof plane is carried all the way over and the height are reduced targeted the front we thought those changes with will a minimal impact on the neighborhood and a minimum variance but the appellants sound likes plans are supportable and conversations to be had and other provisions that could be resolved thank you. >> commissioners the matter is yours. >> i'm a little bit confused i have not harder anything to find

the zoning administrator abused his discretion if there's differences between the parties i don't know how that gets resolved in this way ambassador seems like in the around a permit and not an appeal of a variance decision. >> and i well, this maybe on the side but i don't know we have a policy open frivolous appeals anyway my strong suggestion would be rather than filing an appeal not on the merits that the parties speak to each other rather than spend everyone's time trying to resolve your disputes this is not the appropriate forum so i suggest you spend time talking to each other i'm going to deny the appeal based on