mitigating that. first i will show you the existing conditions of the building from the monitor. you can see on the left here these are the few remaining double hung windows that are historic, otherwise those are alterations over the year and they are pretty bad just in general. it's a little bit hard to see. basically you can see that it's just a -- so it's a regular vertical grid,

vert wall motion tion moud moud motion to -- there is no attempt to falsely history size the rear facade. the previous project did included a change to the rear facade which contains a good amount of glazing. this is the last exposed glazing when approved because of the aluminum shuters. it's a combination of sliding and shuters and fixed glass. i want to show you the views of the front facade again. in your packet you will see more clearly. there is a dash line that

indicates the elevator and the penthouse and the fact that they are obscured from view, they are invisible from the street based on the historic penthouse hides all of that. okay. we weren't sure you were dovenlt i -- done. i have a question only because i know this is invisible from the street but a little bit visible on top offal ---al mow square.

would it raise the height of everything else up to the top of the elevator penthouse to make it all even, neat and clean. just from sponsor side if you would be willing do that? >> from our side we would be willing to do that. we were considering what was previously approved. that is based on your previous approval but we consider raising the top of the penthouse. >> commissioners, just a point of clarification to ensure the rsz meets the department's planning code. you want to verify if this is a tenant space which is the actual

space. we don't want to be in conflict with the requirement. >> mr. frye, if i'm reading this correctly, the top of the elevator pan is 40 feet? >> correct. i would defer to clarify. for a point of clarification you may want to indicate in your approval that it's within the permitted obstruction requirements of the code. >> just to clarify that point. i believe they can bring the penthouse height and stay within the permitted obstructions over the height limit. however if it turned out they could not increase the massing over that height, then we could alternatively raise the pit which is the higher exception over the height

limit and would stick with what's allowed. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions? >> yeah. >> commissioner johnck? >> in raising it, what are we talking about in terms of feet? >> making it even with the top of the proposed. >> okay. >> it's raising it maybe about 18 inches to two 2 feet. a little bit more. i'm sorry, you are right. only a couple feet. >> yeah, okay all right. >> just to keep it clean and even because i do believe from the top. >> all right. >> commissioners any other questions at this time? no? we'll open up to the public. any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and back to commission. commissioner pearlman. >> i believe this lady.

>> oh, okay. please c'mon down to the podium. >> i'm one of the neighbors louis and we live at 816 scott street. i just couldn't tell very well from the pictures, our view will be at the back of the house. the rear of that house. like if someone has to see the pictures better and i have a question about the elevation of that side. is that okay? >> yeah, we are usually running out of time and usual we look at the material before we get to this point. >> it's made available to the public. >> yeah, it's all on the website. >> commissioners, if ms.

karld rowaney can speak to the neighbor, maybe we can resolve this online. >> any other member of the public wish to speak? we'll close public comment. >> this is an appropriate modernist design on the back. i think we stretch our linguistic talents to try to show how it all fits in and there was an emphasis on wow, this is very vertical and victorian is vertical and this is appropriate. it actually read very horizontal to me. it a moot point. i think the design is fine. i think it's just one of those games as architects play to try to say yes, we fit in and i also endorse president karl hasz idea that it's the same level for the elevator and

stair penthouse. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any other comments, questions? do i have a motion? >> i move approval. >> sending. >> with staff recommendations and the addition of your amendments. >> thank you. second? thank you very much. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to approve item 10, with conditions including lining up the elevator and stair pent houses. commissioners wolfram, hasz, highland, johnck, john's, pearlman. that puts you on item 11. item 11: 2014.0885a k. wong; 4155

575-91000 48 gold street, north side of gold street between montgomery street and sansome street. assessor's block 0175, lot 014 request for a certificate of appropriateness for exterior restoration of the historic brick building and construction of a new addition above. the proposal includes the restoration of the existing brick façade, replacement of a non-historic ceramic tiled cornice with a simple brick cornice, and construction of a two-story contemporary and compatible residential addition above the historic building which is to remain as office use. constructed between 1888 and 1905 by an unknown architect and historically used as a smokehouse for achille paladini's fish company, the property at 48 gold street is a two-story industrial brick building featuring three prominent arched openings with steel framed multi-light windows and one recessed entry. the subject property is located with the jackson square landmark district and designated individually as a contributory/compatible under article 10 of the planning code and located within a c-2 community businesss zoning district, and 65-a height & bulk sf 111234 before we start. we have a motion to recuse commissioner hyland. commissioner hyland, wolf ram, commissioner haws you are reaccused. >> good afternoon the question before you is for 48 gold street within the jackson square market district. the subject building was originally constructed between 1900-1905 and used as a smoke house for a fishing

business. 48 gold street is a two industry industrial brick building with three prominent arch building with three multi-light windows and one entry. the proposed project is for the general preservation of a two 2 story building. specifically the proposal includes restoration of the historic brick facade including removal of remaining cement plaster. replacement of missing units and spa repairs and removal of non-historic ceramic tiles and installation of a simple brick cornice. removal of miscellaneous sign attachment and construction of two story2 story include one housing unit

with metal exterior and windows and balcony on both the third level. the majority of the building will be setback 11 feet. based on review of proposed drawing a site visit and project sponsor and design team. the propose project appears to meet the exterior standards for rehabilitation and provision of article 10 for the following reasons. the proposal is compatible with and respects the character defining features of the historic building and jackson square landmark district. the proposed work will not damage or destroy distinguishing original qualities or character of the original historic building. the proposed project will not remove the materials such as the exposed

brick exterior and windows nor irreversibly alter features that characterize the property or the district. the proposed vertical addition will have a design compatible with the landmark district and will be minimally visible from the public right-of-way. if the proposed addition is removed in the future the form and integrity of the historic building will remain intact and the work required to comply with planning code requirements to provide one 1 off street parking space with historic features that characterize the properties surrounding the landmark district. commissioners, the department recommends approval of the project with conditions and just for your information there is a revised motion which i will pass out

including this last finding related to staff recommendation not to provide off street parking. based on these findings the department recommends approval of the project with the following conditions. prior to issuance of architectural addendum, the following shall require review and approval by planning department preservation staff. one, final details of the new addition including window and door profiles and transitions where the new addition meets the existing building. two, final details for the restoration of the historic building including reconstruction of the brick cornice and treat of the brick facade. and three, treatment and protection of historic elements, brick restoration and unit replacement and new

metal cladding, new windows and doors, new glazing and standing metal roof for the new addition and four, finished samples for the proposed brick unit replacement and matching historic brick units and new cornice, new guard rails and new roof and windows and doors. the department received one letter of support for the propose project however the letter also highlighted the concern for a new dwelling unit located within the commercial district and how issues of annoys -- noise and hours of operation may have impact on future residents. i have a copy of the letter for distribution. the project sponsor is here and prepared a short presentation to show the proposed work.

this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you, kelly and good afternoon commissioners. my name is scott keeney, the project architect and sponsor. i prepared a very short presentation for you. i have a powerpoint presentation here.

so, here we are. here is a picture of the exterior facade of 48 gold street which we are proposing to rehabilitate to department of interior standards and maintain and enhance all the character

defining elements which include the cladding and rectangular massing and the brick and symmetrical facade. we don't anticipate any change in taking where the historic significance of the building and just for contact sake, this is the building across the street. the general area surrounded buy 2, 3, 4 and one five 15 story immediately adjacent to it. here is an image with the subject building in the foreground here. the building beyond showing the punched opening that are typical in the facade and also you can see street trees down at the end as well as the planters that have been put in place to give how tight that street is. many of the buildings on the

street front other streets so many of the buildings along the street are more kind of back of the house backdoor type aesthetic. seen in this photo as well. deliver reese occur on the street on a regular basis for businesses along the street. looking in the other direction, we get more punched openings. very pleasant walking street. so what i would like to do, is very quickly go through kind of the process of following handful of submissions working with planning staff and internally with our owner and introducing graham green with us today and charles chase who has been involved in the project from

our architectural resource group advising. the first addition we had two level units you can see a lot of that we explored different heights, masses, set backs, different materials that was deemed a little too tall >> we need new technology. >> can sfgtv get this done?

it's still not working right. there we go. all right. here is the second submissions which is also a two 2-unit 3 level addition. it's a very similar expression of materials but we took the elevator from going up to the roof terrace to reduce the massing from gold street. the third submissions is very similar but we looked at along with the input of planning staff and arg and looked at a different window expression to relate to more of the exterior of the existing building. this one also took the stairs out to the roof. this is the first one that actually took the third level addition off where we reduced it to two 2

story two 2-unit building. this submissions was also a two 2 story 2-unit addition where we started exploring different materials from the existing brick facade and also again pushing the mass pulling it down just a bit to reduce the visibility to gold street. this is very similar to the previous submissions, but we increased in set backs at the two floor levels which really brought it back. the only thing that would work in the very small foot print that we have is the 1 unit addition. this one had exterior case going to the roof which eliminated in

this final rendition here where we still, a single unit 2 story addition very minimal impact on the street. roof terrace on the first floor and upper floor. still, it has about less than 49 -foot dimension to the para pit where 65 feet is allowed. this is a detail of the cornice that we plan to remove the tile and stucco and put back a brick para pit on the building. here are some photos showing the damage to the brick over time. a lot much caused to the sand blasting of the brick to get the stucco off. it was put off at some point

and details to how to best repair that with it's original state. here we have the, these are prospective drawings of the finished product you can see on this side you are not going to see any of it looking, it's hard to point up in this direction here you can see just the very top of the para pit to the elevator. we feel like, we found the right balance between what we would like to do as far as the addition to the building goes and not interrupt and keep de attract from the historic nature of the building and landmark district that it's in. we propose in your packet we have the proposed metal packet on the

top. this just helps vishldz -- swishlz visualize what we would like to do. roof terraces need to be considered and one of the things we wanted to highlight here our subject property is here with this red do the and the red do the is existing that are on the block so we are consistent with that pattern. so, like i said we reached out to many many neighbors with phone calls and walking in met with the next door neighbor had a very good conversation about how we can work together during reconstruction but also long-term how making sure who is in that

building where the type of environment they are going to be living in which is a downtown urban area with plenty of businesses including aybar and restaurant right next door. that concludes my presentation. if anyone has any questions for myself or the team, i will be happy to answer them. >> thank you. commissioners? commissioner pearlman? >> no, i don't have a question. commissioner johnck? >> yeah, i just wanted to compliment you and the owner on the work you did to bring the top addition to a scale that i think it's really appropriate. i went over there this morning about 8 a.m. to see how this is all going to work and it was, of course i was the only one there. there was a delivery truck from a restaurant. i felt like i was back 1900 smoke house alley. it's a beautiful

street. i live within walking distance of most places around the city. i just wanted to compliment you on what you've done to bring it to scale, thank you. >> seeing no other questions or comments from the commission, we'll open to the public at this time. any member of the public wish to speak on this item? actually it's all available online and we can -- city clerk: there is a public copy of the actual plans here but this is not a really question and answer period. it's just an opportunity for you to make any comment if you would like. >> so seeing no comment from the public, we'll close public comment and bring it back to commission. >> commissioners? >> i will move approval with conditions, but staff had a revised motion. >> i have it. >> second. >> thank you,

city clerk: commissioners there is a motion and stockholder -- to approve this project with motions. on that motion, commissioner hyland, commissioner jongs, johnck, john's, wolfram. commissioner karl hasz. that moves 5-0. commissioners item 13 will be taken out of order as it may affect item 12. we'll take item 13 preservation incentives in the planning code. >> and i want to recognize the vice chairman of the commission. >> good afternoon commissioners, rick

sue krae department staff. i'm with scott sanchez the zoning administrator. with a follow up to july hearing, the department requested an authorization, and requirement of the review process to speaking controls for flexible use control for controlled resources. we prepared a short presentation on this and copies have been handed out to you since it looks like the laptops are not working. so just to give you an overview of what we'll discuss today. we will talk a little bit about the preservation incentives. we have divided the incentives into four categories. land use incentives, other requirements, financial incentives and miscellaneous. then we'll talk specifically about five of the code incentives

that seem more period tinent to a lot of our discussions today most of the incentives apply to a variety of types of historic designation. in general, most of the incentives apply to article landmarks, contributing resources to article 10 landmark distribution, category 1, 2, 3, 4 within article 11. properties listed in or determined eligible for national historic places or california register of historic resources. this less distinction is pretty important since certain code requirements only apply to listed buildings or buildings that might be listed as a contributor to a district. the memo provides additional detail as to how and where the specifics of the historic status applies.

looking at 22.9 e, this allows for non-residential use for residential district. the examples of residential district in general and most residential district for example retail uses would not be permitted, but if you are in an article landmark allow conditional use authorization to allow non-residential uses. for example landmark 29, the old firehouse, in 2009, this property received authorization for a change of use from an element ary school to an office use. the baseline zoning would not permit either one of those uses but the department did receive a conditional use to allow this type of property. within mixed use districts, i apologize again for the