hardships i am mposed by the topography of the lot and you have an apartment building essentially on both sides, an 8-unit building and 4-unit building and the project to the east the garage at the very rear of the residential building because it sneaks up the hillside there and seeing that doing something that maybe they can do something that would be code complying that would add the dwelling units that may still require a variance but adding onto the existing buildings did not seem very practical when you have a through lot like this and would call for or encourage an exception to a lot development. in which case the lots don't qualify and the

variance is required. a variance could be justified for this location however i have concern about the overall scope of the overall project and neighbor project proposed here would not be one granted a variance. seeing there is willingness for everyone to get together and discuss alternatives and i'm happy there was some discussion and alternatives discussed and i'm disappointed it did not carry it through and not before the commission here today but removing that third story would be more ceptable in terms of the variance and what came to light at the hearing was the tree issue and that i did have questions and concerns about. i know the department of public works is very diligent in terms of reviewing applications and they only

remove trees when it's been warranted and there has been a hearing on it and they may make a decision and that will be appealed to the board of appeals which gives me a little bit of pause honestly in having a decision right annoy. -- now. i would be really hesitant to having a project used as justification for removal of the tree if that were coming down the line. so those are my thoughts now. i think a variance can be justified for this location not what's currently before you, removed the third stories would be an improvement on that. i understand some of the concerns about maybe having staff look at the design. i under why the residential design team supported this design in the project. i see it complies

with residential guidelines but also i think there may be some revisions necessary in order to address this variance issue. >president cindy wu: thank you. commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: okay, so mr. calvin, can you show us what proposes getting rid of the floor, can you show it what it look like? >> thanks for the question. let me say i think this is a completely appropriate discussion and it's not the first time we talked about removing the third floor. i think it an appropriate discussion. back when we proposed it to the neighborhoods over the summer, this is what we redesign and we don't tv -- have the layout for the whole building. removing that type of square

footage creates an awkward layout for the house. if the commission is going in this is direction with removing the floor i would propose to doing more excavation to make the design work. >> have you thought about asking for variance for getting rid of the garage and leaving as much square footage and not having to put cars in there? >> i don't think that's been considered at this point. >> i think given mr. sanchez' reservation about making decisions today, i think we should propose a continuance. it looks like we shouldn't come to a decision today if the zoning administration

doesn't feel comfortable. >> i would take this matter under advisement and the pending outcome of the tree removal would render a decision at that time. that's one option. if the commission, it's fully in your authority, if you do want to continue it, i would suggest some specific direction. >> i think i heard if we get rid of the square feet on the roof on the floor we are all okay. that's what i would propose. >>commissioner kathrin moore: commissioner hillis made a point about architectural variety to distinguish all buildings so they don't look like a project. that means all kinds of thing, that's change of materials, change of administration, overall building, etc. it seems to me that if indeed there could be a new

project given the tree situation that this project might need to be continued in order to come forward on its own merit with the conditions of the comments made by the commissioners including the very important decision about the trees with the new project. >president cindy wu: commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: essentially yes, you beat me to it on the same page of a continuance. i don't think you want us to redesign it for you at this hour. but just to reiterate the direction i'm hearing this commission would like to take is the removal of the third floor, the removal of the garage, two different expression of architecture separating them so it doesn't look like one large project and probably leaving the tree as possible. i know that's

not ours. >> i think if the tree is deemed healthy. >> i don't think there could be a project with the tree, given the location of the tree. it pretty closes to the property line and i don't know how the building can be designed with the tree. i think it would be with the outcome of that with the hearing and appealed to the board of appeals >president cindy wu: i think i heard commissioner richards say to explore the desirability of the garbage. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >> i agree with commissioner hillis and moore so they don't look like the same thing. that's probably the easiest and in terms of the variance, mr. sanchez, the variance

has to do with the depth of the structures on state and the structures on ord not with the height of the structures. >> both structures are located within the required area of the yard. >> no matter what we do with the height, we know it's going to need a variance. one idea we might propose is we really don't need that lower floor although that doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference because you need the structural elements down there, but perhaps you need a way, the cars would go down a grade and your garage would be somewhat subgrade but that would allow you to have three floors and your grade maybe a few

steps from street level, you would lower it significantly but you would still have separation of floors because otherwise you are going further out in the back which would cause more problems trying to take up more of the space in between. while you can explore the possibility of not having a garage. i think being up there in the middle, i hate to say it, you are a long way from any place. it's going to be very hard if someone does have a place to put a car or two cars up there. it wouldn't be my choice if i was buying something and then i think when we do continue it maybe a time when we can get more of a decision on the tree issues. in a month maybe we can get closer on that tree issue. the other question i have for commissioners if we are talking about taking the floor off or

removing down in height on state, but how about ord, is that an issue or not? when i first looked at that, i kind of said it's too bad that the smaller house where the elderly couple is if that didn't have the same number of floors and we kept the other one on order, they don't want to do that. i would be more in favor on the floor off order than completely eliminating that upper level or state although dipping the whole thing down would help to bring the profile even lower than the adjacent homes and making less of an impact. those are some of my suggestions. >president cindy wu: commissioner hillis? >> >commissioner rich hillis: just a question about the variance. one thing about granting the variance is is you have to keep the

modestly sized homes but what would prevent someone from increasing the massing more. could we condition that as part of this, how does that work? >> you can add conditions however appropriate but once there is a standard variance, the condition on that that states further expansion on the property would require a review to determine if a new variance is required and certainly any expansion of the rear buildings those are required in the rear yard would require a new variance and also with expansion of the new buildings. if there are specific concerns to the front building and if you didn't want the front building expanded any further perhaps you would add some conditions, i can't think of it right now, but you would want the

condition that would prevent from further expansion. >> could you require with another variance? >> from the fact that the variance is granted from the same lot we would look at the front building as well and make a determination if a new variance is required. >> correct. i think that's appropriate given the justification for if you are allowing them to build in the rear yard because because we are not taking that much. we are not allowing, no increase in one side of the front building which i think is important. just on the garage, i think ord is a lot more difficult to park than state given the curb and how it works and they are very much different neighborhoods. it's hard to get from one to the other. i would say look at the park. there are lots on the other side of the lots. it

would make for a better design and better on the street. i would encourage to look at that. >> i would not on top of that looks like existing lot can house two cars in a garage. >president cindy wu: commissioner johnson. >commissioner christine johnson: i'm supportive of a continuance as well. generally speaking i'm not, i like to come to conclusions but all the factors that we are discussing leads to a higher probability that even if we are able to come to a decision today, the project would not look like that because there is too many other things that can happen on the other side of this meeting so definitely support a continuance. i will quickly give what i think. in terms of the garage, that was one thing, mr. sanchez that i was going to

say as well. looks like both buildings accommodate 2-car garages and the first floor of the ord building had some storage space behind the 2-car spaces and there is definitely an opportunity to consider no matter the architect decision on the additional floors. i just want to point out my views on things that i would be supportive of potentially for project redesign. so let's go on the extreme example where the tree is fine and needs to stay there and you would building around the tree which is pretty cool. i have seen it before in the world, but let's say you don't want to do that, project sponsor, i would be supportive of looking again at ord court and look at a building with multiple units that are

zoned rh 2. if you are landscaping or doing something with the rear yard on state street side of that lot, a community could potentially be compelling to have a building on ord court with more than 1 unit. don't throw that out the window. i also think that on state street property, it could potentially be compelling to have some level of excavation to account for the floor that i agree should probably come off the top of those two buildings and i also agree the two buildings on the state street side should be differentiated and actually i made this comment before when we commented about differentiation on the completely different project, if you are going to make it different, don't just change the color, make

it separate buildings. that's my comment on the design. and if ord court ares if you are going to keep it to one family unit. i think this wasn't as clear. i would want to see the top fourth floor come off that building and again you can do some reconfiguration and you have the 2-car 2-car garage. if you are not doing the two 2 units i would want to see a shorter building there. >> commissioner moore in >>commissioner kathrin moore: i think the commission has given enough creative suggestions. i think it's making sense to continue if you can't talk yourself out of architecture. i just hope that the tree issue will be resolved one way or the other. if it

is resolved. so be it. i'm not sure what the timeframe is but i think it easily takes another 3-4 months to get this done. >> commissioner richards? >> >commissioner dennis richards: the house in question, 24 ord court, that is probably an affordable house. my fear is we are going to be coming back with a variance to build a monster home there for the couple that i hope live for a very long time but when they are not there, that it should be modest. >> that could be part of any variance decision whereas the finding granting the variance to the small size of the

building. >> that's wonderful, thank you. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i would also suggest to the architect to design something with the remaining trees. and if the it could be to the area where the tree is not and they both come from that curb cut behind the tree below grade a little and the other go in the other way and that might allow you and then you would have the one house would be behind the tree, they would be masked by the tree and they can still have their entrance there and the other house, i wouldn't let the garbage dominate the design but to have them both come through the same wider curb cut to get a

wider in the front and maybe a duplex. >commissioner dennis richards: one last word. fw they want it for their children, so be it. >> commissioners, if you are talking at a 1 month continuance you are looking at january 8th, however you are full, if you are talking 3 months, you are at march 5th. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i would move to continue to february 5th. if the project sponsor feels they can work something out in that amount of time. do you think it's doable and we can have some tree information. okay. february 5th. city clerk: on that motion, commissioners to continue this matter

to february 5th. >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner christine johnson: >commission vice-president rodney fong: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong:. that motion passes 6-0 and places you under general public comment which i have no public speaker cards. >president cindy wu: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. meeting adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> hmm. [cell phone beeps]

hey! [police whistle blows] [horns honking] woman: hey! [bicycle bell rings] turn here. there. excuse me. uh. uh. [indistinct announcement on p.a. system]

so, same time next week? well, of course. announcer: put away a few bucks. feel like a million bucks. for free tips to help you save, go to ♪ feed the pig (clapping) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ celebrating the wow. turnout this is our third annual to celebrate pride we notice we didn't have community event for pride. we actual had 19 we had godzilla and are you ball weird names i

think its unique we're able to have special event we're all women that relax and have fun you know everything is friendly and kind we're all equal i'm happy that