with the par fits and number two the fact the rear of the houses is not imperfect aligned with the adjacent neighbor 1758 was approved by the planning so it's not yet constructed dr requester says reduce the height of the proposed building for both locations through negotiation and agreement it was my understanding they first were dealing with the 29 foot number down to 27 feet at the request of the dr requester so there's significant negotiation on this what i guess a misunderstanding or i'm not sure what the issue is but it was also intend and

there's an e-mail in our packet discussing this definition is in the building code not including the exemptions in the planning code covered in section 260 b that excludes the paneling and other materials to comply with building code inclusion of a roof deck on a single-family home didn't represent an extraordinarily or exceptional circumstances and anticipated in the planning code or residential guidelines to this point if this was a renovation project it wouldn't require neighborhood notifications i guess there's is a history of seeing roof deck as

not a significant impact to my knowledge there's no plan the dr requester want to establish one that is a precedence other areas the project sponsors my clients thought to compromise will 5 hundred square feet as you can see it is 1/3rd the area of the roof and changed the rails from metal with cables to glass which i know it has it's on discussion but they seek a compromise on the roof deck and there's no penthouses associated with the roof deck only a spiral stair on the north side of building

so through will be a derailing of the spiral stair coming up to the roof regarding the issue of the set back of the property there's some information in our package that says the overall length of the building is past it is not true the building is shift back on the lot to account for a driveway slope we need the slope to accommodate a 27 overall building height that was negotiated the building is shifted back on the lots and the driveway slopes down i have a section - itself lines in red

illustrates the slope regarding the set back at the back and the fact that our building extends slightly not 5 foot but 3 foot 9 i worked with the adjacent building architect we came to an architect he'll slide his rear yard wall forward he didn't come near the set back this was an agreement too two architects the buildings were built together there was not an impervious to align those building. >> is my time up or - >> thank you. >> okay speakers in support of

project sponsor okay. seeing none dr requester a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thanks the only point i know you're not here to be the ash terse of the private we've negotiated that was actually based on the design of the adjacent house and we hadn't seep this at this point so you know we were norwalk in good faith and that haas house has no projects above the agreed height limits it was reasonable to assume that the second house we've asked for plans of it they wouldn't share but had the same relationship of the height agreement that's the relationship that the second house has significant additional

elements thanks. >> project sponsor you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i want to come up and show a couple of other drawings here line in red ♪ illusion represents the sidewalk grade other noreaga street it is attached to the sidewalk the identical that the dr requester showed you was a little bit deceptive it was exaggerating the size and scale of this house

and this image shows the mid block open space that is n in questioning e in question there's not a dominant rear yard pattern on this block there's a lot of variation and i think our house or property house is consistent with that variation that's all >> public hearing a closed opening up to commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> we're again in this situation not able to look at the houses that's difficult to judge they're larger and bigger in the design and take and a ventricular it is a modern building when i'm concerned about the size is the cause of

particular small move it looks at learn than it might be so the roof deck in and of itself is not an issue we can debate but the project is code compliant to the extent a roof deck does not count in calculating other people i saying that credible mr. zoning administrator. >> the building is code compliant as property and well within the height limits with the roof deck even if the building is non-compliant will be provisions in the planning code to allow the building to be non-compliant so that's the information on the deck. >> that might be a discussion beyond what we're doing today not a rule to be challenged but as the city identifies those roof decks it is another subject

we may want to look at some point in the future the issue i have regarding the roof deck and i've said this many, many times i'm happy it has a circle last year stair the roof deck to the entrance of the building i would is we've taken on again and again i like the roof deck to hold back from the building in this case in 3 distributors in the north side and from the west's e west side and the south side i'm to pull the roof deck in by at least 3 feet to align with the general demising lines to the west and the building to the north as well as the south that will bring to the yes,

ma'am of circle last year stair the roof deck is innovate as per 7th when you keep the activities of roof more privatized so to speak so not pushing it to the building edge over all the building i'm not sure going to take on the style it is not exactly my thing but that's not why i'm sitting here i'm interested to take a constructive point towards neighborhood concerned in the area of the roof deck i can't make the roof deck disappear what i can do is my own sensitivities pulling the roof deck in so it is not so impacting to the corners of the

joining neighbors that's my suggestion. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have concerns it's unfortunate in my opinion there was not an attempt to make it a medicaid entertainer revival it says wouldn't seem so so objective if it had the features of the houses unfortunately where this is located in a neighborhood that has no restrictions if it were an area like st. francis where it has to be approved by american people association it had a has to be approved they blend together different acre styles but a

sdeerm there's a wall except a window i don't know why there's not more activity it seems like there would be more interest it's like a property wall something to be down to make it not look to block boxy that's one thing i'd like to see in terms of the deck there are another decks present although they don't look to the north and west as another decks on the floors are probably looking southeast i can understand wanting to have something else on the top but i agree with commissioner moore i know if we do approve the deck it it should be 5 hundred square feet is a big deck that's like 25 by 25 like a party room he

deck you should put a couple of tables and have lunch or dinner on a nice day so i'll be supportive of bringing the deck back and i don't know about this year they're talking about the 3.9 beyond the adjacent building i don't know that's a huge issue for me as was mentioned sh9d with the building to be built next to it so there's staff believes there's a significant spates between the two houses so which will support public views i have to take their word for it i looked at the pictures in the mid block it would be nice if it was aligned by changes made

architecturally so it didn't look to angular and the decks being brought in from the sides. >> commissioner richards i agree with comments from my fellow commissioners, i think the deck all the away's way to the edge of the building is a lot given there's no pattern for that a happening in the neighborhood per the code i'll make a motion to move the deck 4 feats on the two sides. >> this is north - this is west and this is east so on north and west and south. >> north and west and south four 4. >> the landing and stared can remain in the same place. >> second that as long as they continue to work with staff so

this is normally our conditions. >> commissioner hillis just on the deck i mean, i'm supportive of reducing the size of the deck i think the place longer than the noreaga edge i think the 4 feats opens that one side didn't trouble me it is 10 feet it would take to 5 feet from the property line from the noreaga side. >> can i clarify the north property line which has abutting new construction and next to the east that is to the rear of the property cigaretteing and the location at the front facing

12th street is where the stairs are so the northeast and south would be produced by the northeast. >> i used the wrong reference from the direction of sky so what accident zoning administrator said was correct and this is what you want to try. >> i don't think that shifting it next to the other building being constructed does go anything for anyone they're more impacted by itself rail on noreaga and there's the building is set back 5 feet the majority of building line is 5 feet from the property line so i would set it back ten feet from the noreaga side.

>> can i ask the dr requester a question imyou're here we're talking about your impacted where would i like to see the deck reduced. >> you were saying i mean it's set back on the east and the west but the degree to which it could be more set back a helpful because that reduce the breath of visual and certainly setting that back from the south

building is significant that's the main kind of angle approach to the north we have quiz about the sessions of rail it's due to building code you know fire subtraction issues so if it would be set back from the north as well 0 so that the solid sections are no longer required of the builder in the building was uniform from metal or glass from being cigarette. >> commissioner moore. >> no, i think as long as the zoning administrator saids we want to keep it reduced from the massing but it makes the stairs functioning we're not moving the

stairs. >> commissioner antonini yeah. i misspoke the wall i was complaining about having only one small window it is actually on negotiating yeg not on 12th because the streets are confusing in that part of the city negotiating noreaga it not going down the hill but it's objective there is only one wall that is completely blank. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess question for myself and commissioner hillis our intent to not shrink it by the same dimensions but shift it closer to the property line on the property going down the hill and yes. >> i like that idea i like if idea. >> i i know there's a motion. >> i made the motion but i'm entertaining our amendment. >> i'll move to have it 10 feet

from the property line on noreaga side. >> and remain the same on the - >> i'm in different to the other. >> it's hard to say we don't have the mapping of the adu adjoining building i'd like to keep roof decks from all buildings. >> keep it where do you start getting rid of the solid wall. >> the par fit requirement to get someone on the interpretation of the building requirement but the architect can address that 3 feet. >> par fits are required on exit stairs or fire rated protection from the spiritual coming down and any walkable i'm

sorry any skylight between within the property line. >> there are fire glasses you could use with an additional cost. >> speaking there's some debate about that to be honest it's a dbi question architect friend of mine did recently have a skylight approved without the par pit but within that approximate i could estimate what if that's a possibility for us as well. >> commissioner richards. >> a question for the zoning administrator if you're standing on noreaga and looking up what point does the roof deck become invisible. >> typically at this point you know south of this property is the driveway for another property on noreaga and noreagas

split-level depends upon if you're westbound so part of it where the dr requesters have essentially it higher so if it's on the plans if show that the height of noreaga to the fauld facade of the propose and red line that may be helpful i think given that noreaga in particular that southbound or eastbound part of noreaga for the dr requesters is essentially hire you would have to set back it further from noreaga. >> noreaga relative to the height of the building. >> so you can see it from anywhere not the programming around the edge. >> yeah. >> so commissioner richards

are you amending. >> i'm trying to see if someone can bring office of the city administrator those two together and help me auto u out. >> commissioner moore. >> we could create a condition subsequent to once you have the exact elevations you'll have your measure to the roof deck and have the railing on the balcony stay beyond that that's the way it's done in other situations. >> fairly - somewhat complicated to achieve probably the preference to have clear set distance for the deck to be set back this is otherwise code complying deck and it's correct

that the addition of this deck will not trigger a modification. >> i'm comfortable what is suggested making it more sizings to the massing the building and pull it away from all edges of the property. >> if it's set back 4 feet if the northeast and south foster from the south. >> that bay is 4 feet there's a bay that goes out 4 feet basically on the noreaga side so it you go 7 feats on the north side and 3 feet on the south side and 3 on the north side you're getting a pastor kelvin edwards, sr., the kelly charge of the united methodist church that's consistent with the footprint of the building not counting for the bay. >> i'll second it. >> commissioner hillis are you - okay. >> that was a 10 foot.

>> 7. >> 7. >> 7. >> 7 - 37 on the east and 3 on the north so it will be reduced 3 feet if the north and 7 feet from the south and no change on the east. >> okay from the - is that amenable. >> the east the part along noreaga. >> the east facing the rear yard. >> oh it's already been back further okay. i think that's fine. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to reduce the size of the deck 3 feet on the north side and 7 on the south side on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore.

>> i like to have clarification based on the exchange we just had a second ago could you go through that one more time. >> i believe not including a sent on the east side. >> not on the east side. >> it's set back there's a big roof that extends beyond. >> where the rear decks are. >> not sloping on the dick on the east side. >> already here we go.

>> i take it back 3 additional feet on that the east side. >> that motion is withdrawn and amended yet again and is that amenable. >> i'll. >> 7 yeah. >> so the new motion is the deck will be to approve the project to take dr and approve the project and reduce the deck by 3 feet on the north and east side and 7 on the south side commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards chairperson wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on items 16 ab for the case - 002064 other jackson

street a discretionary review and case no. 13 at jackson street foreseeability and variance. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong i'm christine the item before you a request for a discretionary review on jackson street the proposal to replace 5 feet tall wind-screens above a garage around the side terrace and the northwest adjourn and construct a new one story spiral please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, place above the dwelling the variance hearing for the project occurred on april 23rd of last year but reheard for the discretionary review the planning code requires the 15 foot back if the

subject promissory note property it was built to the property line and provides no set back to the wind-screens above the freehand e present of the building requires a variance it requires 32 foot rear yard that is 25 percent of the deck and it steps workplace 25 feet of the property line and located parking lot within the rear yard the wind-screen replacement at the northwest corner of the yard requires a variance the project sit a single-family dwelling constructed on 50 innovate by one hundred plus yard in the pacific heights neighborhood it is a

single-family dwelling the opposite blocks is - on behalf of the pacific height his prime concerned is the lack of air and light it was reviewed by the residential design team and found the proposed project meets the standard guidelines and not with k350er8d or exceptional guidelines it is supportive of the design not require a firewall and provide instead provides dick assess to the rear yard therefore the department represented it not take dr that concludes my presentation. and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> dr requester you have