about, and i am surprised that the neighbors don't know it if you could turn this on is the dr requestor, has a roof deck on that garage, on ash bury, and that view, which is lovely is going to be partially taken away, and everybody on this street, probably has been on this roof deck and this is what it is, saving a view and taking a young family and telling them that their house is not going to be built, so that view can be taken. i recommend that the commission let this project go forward and deny the dr thank you. >> thank you. >> is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon commissioners and president wu, on the last hearing for the 1155 ash bury, i spoke about what a view that collapse of the process that

was intended to provide the public oversight for the planning process, but turned into an all warfare mud slinging character asays assassination and we saw that in the last hearing and really the intention of this particular individual is to build a home for his family. and unfortunately, the project, and for project sponsor, the dr requestor is one of these entitled individuals who is choosing to take advantage of our system. would the process calls for the labor working together, to resolve their differences and they would call those who work with the project sponsors bought off, and and wish to place an elevator on his home, not so fast according to dave he must first prove the disability to dave and if the owner wishes to build. even without a house, he is

proposing to build a six story building, each though it is three from the street and five

>> okay. seeing none any public comment on that item? >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm inclined to support this project all of the comments it's a vacant lot quite a ways away from the neighbors as far as the impact of light and air it's not having an effect and was appointment out the views are not protected on someone's property you don't own those arguments are not valid and also staff seems the height is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood there a number of building in the area that are 3 floors it becomes larger as a drops down the hill but not open the street level i generally think a that's a good project

according to those plans approximately 28 feet to the par fit 279 and so this is thirty there it is over 2 feet higher than that plan the massaging it similar i like the art deco on the 91 ensue unfortunately that's not brurs before us today, i think it is going to be a good project. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. sanchez i have a technical question for you could you explain the granting of that agreements dynamic quite sure what happened. >> in terms of how we refer it for the rear yard calculation we go by the property lines for the agreement by another prove or disprove by the project sponsor will better address even though easement how it came about.

>> you're looking at the property line not the granting of 4 feet. >> we'll include the four feet agreement because we go by the property line they'll have to change that in order to not consider that. >> can you ask the project sponsor why the easement was granted. >> tom on behalf of the project sponsor he the project sponsor had a child that got injured outside and had to go downstairs you could explain more it's a no build easement granted to the people to the rear the rear yard

open space will not be built upon and preserves that mid block open space on this property and it was something that the rear yard adjacent property owner asked for in connection with my clients purchase. >> this is a temporary thing with the child being injured like allowing the person to use that part of the garden space. >> no, no i'm sorry i was explaining that the property owner is here not building and could explain more about the easement but his child got injured outside the chambers and they had to go downstairs. >> i misunderstood that. >> no, but i think i know and can explain all there is to know

about the easement a no built easement over 4 feet of my clients property. >> so no fence that delineates those four feet belonging to the other property. >> right. >> it can explain my 4 feet so - and correct. correct. >> okay. thank you. commissioner hillis. >> i'm sorry can i ask you a request is it the dr requester can i sky a question oh, come on. >> did you want to make a comment on the easement. >> i want to say you speak into the other microphone. >> i have a copy of the easement there's a metal fence

it's temporary if you want to see it i do you think there's relevance. >> it's unusual space. >> that's the rear yard. >> that has the rear yard space. >> i understand what the da said but it effectively reduced the rear yard by 4 feet and delineated by a in per it's. >> it's on 4 feet. >> it's within the property. >> into the co-sponsors. >> yeah. yeah, you live on clayton street. >> that's correct. >> all the way through our garage is aspen street. >> that's correct. >> it's not clear i get our objection about the variance but it's tough to build without a

variance no real way without the encroachment into the rear yard. >> the project sponsor is a professional developer i mean, he knowingly bought this incredibly small substandard lot knowing this in advance. >> so what itself impact fee what are you looking for besides i get the variance discussion what are you looming to mitigate against. >> there's two aspects to it. one is the fact that the project sponsor deliberately misrepresented >> forgetting forget that half the process getting here open the development reporter on the project before us what impacts are you looking to mitigate. >> there's impacts on clayton

street in terms of light and privacy and ashbury street in terms of the fact it didn't follow the roofline it clearly is way above the ashton roofline it is not period of time inept to the ash burger roofline it hooves over is west side it completely pops out on the west side so those are the elements, of course, their - >> the jumps. >> you've seen the presentation. >> the elevation in the back. >> not only in the backyard by above the joining buildings in the backyard and in the front on the west side of ashbury. >> thank you. appreciate that

so generally for meality it would be good to hear your comments it revolves around the variance and a dr that follows the variance but we're trying to get a lot of height i can't build that so. >> yeah. yeah, but i want to make a point this is not a in the middle type of developer this is a guy that absolutely. >> yeah. yeah, i don't think the height own the ashbury it is the massing on is ashbury it's taller than the building if you want to garage i think i'm more concerned with the note necessarily to have the roof-deck but i'm concerned with the height and massing the back of the building in mile east and

west i'm getting confused but we're not stepping down the hill because of the size of the lot we're trying to get in liveable space so your thoughts but you know, i would be amenable to removing the roof-deck and having a cut back on the upper floor. >> i'm going to talk about my thoughts commissioners i so in the first i think the a variance has bun justified twice in the 77 a subdivision that created this a lot between ashbury to split the lots and build a single-family and it was pursued because of of him be issues in

1990, 9091 another faufld facade sold it to the current person for another variance so far the single-family dwelling and they struggled with it it seems like it is a difficult lot to build on feet and size the configuration of the front property line that's perpendicular to the rest of the lot ass and a bit of the balance between the depth and height the last decision that limit the development that established a 15 foot rear yard and a height of 26 and a half feet based on the comments it seems like this is a reduction in height close to 89 feet he may be they came in with a difficult height a

concern by the neighbors in my letter about the height and some consensus that depth was less of a concern so they thought to reduce the height there was a set back that was a 3 stories a little bit of a curve so a couple of inches and the rear set back this was unclear from the decision it didn't codify the decisions but it's clear this was a set back at the top level of the rear again, we're in a situation of a balance what they're seeking in terms of a rear yard variance is more than what air force in the previous the height a sliblth taller than we're up to thirty feet it's still a 3 story building and the previous proposal will remove

par events and things like that so the roof-deck issue you've pointed out right now they're proposing a 15 foot rear yard but with 3 foot obstructions one with a balcony which is they're doing glass in terms of the impact that balcony it is hanging off the structure to the north, you know, that's just a one level with the glass railing a light the smaller mass goes multi levels on the south and the on open the plan is an elevator like a club accelerators that wouldn't have been included in the previous variance as well as the top story i see the variance is

justified i don't see there're digestion to deny the variance because of the two decisions gravpt the project the question is how much of a extension should the extension to the rear yard be more think of a balance between the two javent buildings the garage to the south and the front through there would be a balance of usable spates e space the question is the instructions are they necessary the balcony is a nice feature it's light and amenable the elevator what have a bit of an impact relocated within the regular envelope my concern is about the extension into the rear yard and justifying those are features but i'm also really want to get

the commissioners concerns and thoughts about the height of the building or cut forwarding t is reduced this justifies the rear yard but the current plan is the elevator location and sitting back and can be accomplished someplace else maybe the architect wants to discuss that. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> i have a question of the architect is he here? would you tell us the roof-deck how many square feet >> the gross is on the cover sheet it is measured from the outside of the envelope is a total of 31 hundred and 42 gross square feet that doesn't include the roof-deck or the garage.

>> so it's a big house we were talking about 27 hundred so it's open is higher end of what i consider a house in the city my house is 15 hundred square feet it's a big house. i share some of the concerns around did massing something has to give you think the zoning administrator struck a anchored when he said where is the balance another question when the house is sold two variances when the real estate disclosure isn't that evident to anyone somewhere written down >> not necessary the permit has the history the title reports

should pull notices of standard conditions had a variance been grand in a past then my summation would be on the planning information website. >> so it should have been that way two variances in the past come on i ago with mr. scott possibly something went wrong i'm struggling with the massing i think i should move towards the 1991 dimension vs. the substandard small lot. >> are you done speaking. >> if you have one thing. >> relative to that relativity to the floor and ceiling he's they're not anything a typical

from the street up their 8 or 9, 9 foot 6 that gets us there. >> dr requester do you have anything else you want to add. >> i personally think that the falsification where the dr submitter knew he needed to get a permit and he drew angle and it's about the glossed over it's black and white a more clear civiltion is hard to minimum in my presentation i gave you a falsification was done and in 2002 dot 1153 revocation

occurred why is there no penalty for the falsification? >> i'm happy to address that when it was before summit as a project a question coming out the center how to calculate the dimensions its unique in terms of it's relationship to ashbury the question is should they include the adjacent building for the purposes of calculating the rear yard requirement own downey street. our initial reaction was yes, they need to get a rear yard variance but did not it is the unique situation because the buildings due front open different streets technically on different streets what gets to the corner lot it references an

angle of 2 hundred 35 degrees if tests demonstrated, you know, it would be considered a corner the blood the planning code it could not include the purposes of the calculation the project sponsor said we should exude that and the application was a preys processed and discussed with staff when you know the neighbors raised those concerns they priority their own analysis of the angle and we went back to the sponsor and requested a survey at that point it was clear they rounded so in terms of the question was something feasted getting at the intent of someone in health insurance hearings is difficult our remit

is to evaluate a project that goes beyond the personalities in the room we're going to make the decision been the code this is not a court of law to if found someone guilt or innocent this is one of the things >> i was seeing the obvious how it slipped if it's other than the title report and it was the information provided by the sponsor. >> got it i will support n some reduction where the height and depth or both. >> it's not arena around. >> sorry no more public comment. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm looking at the pictures of the 1991 building those pictures there is is slithering

higher but their massing t is similar on ashbury street with the exception of the roof-deck i could see the elimination of the roof-deck if the commission deems it appropriate that's the only thing sticking up that was approved a number of years ago this prong has quite a bit of square footage and has a couple of decks if i'm not mistaken mr. sanchez that are terraces that are not on the very top but exterior areas that go out to balconies. >> that's correct the third floor has the balcony i referenced as a deck with the grade level this is assessable from the master bedroom and the lowest level. >> rather than disrupting the

massing of the building itself because of the narrowness of the lot you've got a situation where you fall offer specifically to the rear you have to accommodate that unless you have a very short building with excelling, you know, everything crammed into the front if you're going to use that space it makes sense to come up the number of floors to make that even all the way back and allow to you have larger sized rooms rather than narrow rooms so i don't have a problem with this and i'm okay with the rear yard although it's a variance it doesn't have impact on anyone except for the owner of the house this has a less of a rear yard we approve a lot of projects that has a less

of a rear yard sometimes they make up them with depths that are technically not rear yards. i'm ready to approve it as is by re >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> sensitive to taking it off the roof-deck if the commissioned feels see. >> commissioner moore. >> i would be more interested in following the conversation which mr. sanchez started that really the largest obstacles in the remainder are the elevator and the balcony. what the facing block side to the rear coming in clayton shows a uniform startle by which the properties you're moving towards the chiropractor of ashbury but they maintain an openness i want to see reciprocated open our

side of the street which means by moving the elevator more into the existing massing and potentially pulling the balcony back we would have a similar openness and not really have a requiring a rear yard variance but doing that the intrusive quality of the larger massing would be greatly reduced it would be slithering a taller building by the project is code compliant and only in the variance of the concerns about the rear massing where i think some of the major issues are for me strike is line between the southern this and moving north that will basically move the

elevator in and pull the balcony back without seriously russel's reducing the functionality of the building. and i'll hand you a map you'll see what i'm trying to do and mr. sanchez described it is basically the elevator and the external blatantly go that will be pulled back behind the property line >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. commissioner moore sort of took a lot of my claims comments i agree pulling the elevator back and i feel they'll have a variance based on the lot size bus that's right better. i don't know if commissioner antonini has considered the roof-deck is part officially part of the motion i was trying to follow that line >> i didn't make a motion. >> oh, i would say i norman

like to think of the roof as the space in the building and it should be active in certain ways not a blank space in terms of the balancing approach i'm not sure that philosophy of how the building works for the space because of the height of the building in remittance to it how that space is used i would be supportive of metamorphic the roof-deck and pulling the elevator back i personally will limit it to those two changes. >> commissioner hillis. >> so just thinking how to do this between the variance and the dr i mean, i suggested putting some scott maybe deny the dr because i also, you know, things get complicated as we

move architecture and encourage him for the variance hearing he could remove the elevator and the deck inside if that's the case and remove the roof-deck there should be a set back on the back at least 5 feet you can put a deck out there. >> it could be, you know, if the conditions could be the same i could take dr and remove those elements or not take dr and change anything and get through the variance i don't share the same concerns with the roof-deck because it is part of the design and it's very well landscaped it doesn't have a penthouse and