Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 25, 2015 12:00am-12:31am PST

12:00 am
front i don't see where it needs happen 136 does not have set back oh, they have set back. >> i'm not certain i'll have to pull it up. >> i don't know. i certainly will entertain that although i've looked at the planned where the bedrooms are and 94 none of the bedrooms are huge the two on the front is fairly small i can range a 10 by 12 and 11 thank you 13 not big bedrooms and couple of bathrooms you have to look at the space because something will have to be cut to some degree that's my only problem. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask the project
quote
12:01 am
architect the person in the presentation said a hatch was not doable where they require hatches in spaces i think those stair structures are awe notifying. >> i can speak to that. >> when there's a roof deck you need a stair that's code compliant and need handrails a hatch didn't allow that a hatch works if mechanic equipment or spates space on the roof. >> we've used hatches before why is this different that a hatch won't work here. >> i honestly can't answer that why a hatch wouldn't be feasible as opposed to the bulk.
12:02 am
>> can i ask the architect so if we were to minimal a hatch that's an opening in the envelope at that location we'll be required to build a par pit so all the way across the extension of that hatch we'll be compared to zero to 7 feet and that flattens out to exit the stair you'll have the horizontal wall at the property line and closer to the skylight 42 inches in height frankly there's no way around that of i found a exemption code for the roof says that the par fit will make the
12:03 am
shading worse. >> i'm not sure about that. >> compared to the zero to 7 as opposed to 12 feet 40 inch wall. >> blood staining explain why you need the 40 feet wall. >> fire opening it is less than 5 feet if the opening. >> to me i don't know if i commissioner you want to add it that. >> if i may in those places we asked for hachdz the hatches were in the roof on the property line and in this case you can and dbi allows it to come with a hatch right through the roof so it will go to a deck by different in situation. >> i'm concerned about the
12:04 am
staircases we've seen proliferation and the roof deck there's a lot of open space in the proposal between a deck and significant backyard. >> to me that's the more troubling i don't believe the set back in the front can do anything the 5 foot set back can do too much on the street 10 feet and start to lose a lot of square footage on this floor so those are any thoughts. >> it would be very difficult to maintain the children's bedrooms if we went 5 feet into the back. >> okay thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> was a 15 by 12 foot deck on the main living area i question that as large roof deck on top of the roof didn't quite add up
12:05 am
for mow me and so i kind of are in support of what i commissioner hillis is a asking why is this large roof-deck is it code compliant there's a exception i've been to one room is this deck too large and if it requires a build out slant penthouse i'm kind of wondering this the too much for the project. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm questioning maybe i misunderstood commissioner moore you said they have a deck somewhere else and on the first floor living level. >> oh here it is that deck;
12:06 am
right? >> i acknowledge that the other thing that was brought up i can ask the architect the possibility of putting a small deck off the master bedroom you'd like to take a little bit off maybe play with the bathrooms what kind of dimensions to make a a liveable room. >> it's more of a - my concern about reimbursing and set backably the the master bedroom you have 6'6" of bed and have 2 2 foot bedside tables i'm getting 2 feet left over so i
12:07 am
don't have- there's not 0 whole a lot of room we did try to make reductions and being straightforward with the master bedroom and kids' room. >> there's a possibly you have an edition a horizontal and vertical edition of the top two floors only; is that correct. >> we're at the 45 percent line we have not asked for a reduction rear yard. >> there's a reduction. >> no two foot 2 stories high or a 4 story in order to get the program to work. >> that is - you'd have to come out another 3 feet but not off the master bedroom you'll be going out on the deck to the first floors.
12:08 am
>> yeah. and again making the impact on some maybe lessen some. >> and make american people impact on the neighbor next door. >> we've been trying to balance this problem by being in sync as far as the massing. >> i don't understand the problem i don't side an opportunity unless you shave the bathroom. >> there's a main deck off the roof-deck and looking at many of the projects i know it was 427 on one street that will solve
12:09 am
the penthouse i'll support asking for the roof deck to be removed. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean he support unless you can help us with a solution on the staircase there is a cell phone tower and the roofs that had structure i mean clearly i think people across the street the issue was a view issue the space that get so much utilized. >> there's a precedent for roof deck on the street there are houses some of which at the residents of the dr supporters that have roof deck we're innovating not trying to claim something. >> we're really to to minimize
12:10 am
the impact the he knows of the roof deck and the railing or more importantly trying to get - >> just to be clear the railing is transparent it's opposite there's an inhabitable roof deck. >> so to the stair. >> to the stair i mean - i have - if it's a habitable roof i have to be able to get people in and out safely and that's the building code. >> i don't know if i can fought a way of a hatch i can i'm going to have to raise that wall and can the studies we've shown it is going to make a greater impact on that skylight first of all, which is the only instance
12:11 am
where light has been effected the neighbors to the north they're not impacted by the roof enclosure. >> okay thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree with some of the commissioners i don't like the stair penthouse in this case you've got something that is well below the height and essentially the same height alters the existing building the neighbor to their west i believe and you know, i just don't see an alternative other than removing the deck entirely i'll make a motion to not take dr and approve the project. >> do i hear a second.
12:12 am
>> commissioner richards. >> i'm supportive of removing the roof deck and that in support of commissioner antoninis. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to architects to consider if you're not having stairs up to your penthouse you'll be arriving at the north side with the stair opening but you'll have a stair to step into to come into the roof facing the option direction and the stairs will be a 14r57bd form that opens in the center of the roof would you then be able to get a hatch based on the description what we can do we have done that
12:13 am
on quite a few of the projects and have shares that dbi because of the cluster of space has hatches. >> if i'm understanding correctly right now we have a wrap around stair rather than wrap up that around continue the leg to the northeast so on the third floor we have an 8 foot floor plate we have let's see. >> we have over 4 feet of rice we have to make i'm going to basically cut off my hallway. >> can you relocate a stair i don't have is paper i don't know
12:14 am
what those are can you find a way ramp the stair in the northern direction e.r. bending it in a double way to the east to get up to the roof that supports the project. >> i believe i don't have the headroom. >> could you make the headroom. >> it will mean a whole redesign the floor in terms of the not getting access to the hall to the bedroom. >> i was kind of waiting for you to say i'll try. >> i will do my best. >> (laughter). >> it sodiums the issue is not the deck such as the access to the deck it will be in our power
12:15 am
to say you'll take dr and approve the project with no staircase and if it's possible to use a hatch to proceed in that direction in not there will be no opposition. >> thank you. >> (laughter). >> i'll second. >> commissioner richards. >> and do need a formal motion. >> motion made. >> we have a motion and a second unless the maker and the person of the motion. >> i mean, i'll propose especially an amendment and the amendment has to be redesigned in a way to have a hatch beyond the scope i'm going to go let's
12:16 am
see what everyone else says. >> call the question. >> what is it okay with the seconder. >> not maker of the change was not. >> okay. so on the motion to not take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis no commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore no and commissioner richards no and commissioner president wu that motions fails two to four with commissioner hillis commissioner richards and commissioner president wu voting against. >> commissioner richards i make a motion to take dr and approve the project with a roof hatch if not possible not a roof-deck. >> second. >> so there's a is there a motion and a second requiring a roof hatch for the roof-deck if
12:17 am
not possible eliminating 9 roof deck on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 12 for case d at 435 tenth avenue this is a discretionary review. >> this is an item for a request for continuous that's not supported by the that project sponsor. >> let's take the issue of whether or not to continue. >> i ask we continue this until networks week. >> there are no other items and
12:18 am
february 5th is extremely full you have 1, 2, 3, 4 essentially 5 but one is 4 drs and, however, the week after. >> february 12th is on. >> i'll make a motion to continue this to february 12th. >> first on the issue of whether or not to continue is there any public comment? >> hello, i'm david on behalf of the pardon we're the ones that requested the continuance. >> the dr requester. >> yes. >> and i just want to point out that one of the things that was pointed out in the last week, a project sponsor architect can't be here today and we're hopeful that the same kind of analysis was given to the new project and will be no
12:19 am
assistance to occur so besides that we have requested it because we do not have everyone in our family and team available to be here the project sponsor tracey's is here only with the permission of her employer but if we have to go forward we will but i prefer to continue it. >> is there any additional public comment on this question of the continuance? >> face up on the projector. >> good afternoon
12:20 am
commissioners my name is in this case i'm the applicant on 435, tenth avenue although we want to proceed we've been in close condominium conversion with the last rvtv channel 3 including a meeting to discuss the project i think we can clearly describe it's merits and we had a meeting with the gentleman by phenomenon and i'd like for not being here in the last 365 it's been 2 hundred and 65 days we've having had four final designs that are supported by itself city the decisions were made in our favor
12:21 am
by the san francisco planning department there's been appealed on multiple occasions the san francisco planning department has had to put it the hardships westbound self-inflicted and no extraordinary conditions existed the planning staff suggested the sunshine ordinance and we had a renotification due to a typo when was time to schedule did did hearings the last hearing was studying bit the dr requester even though they choose today the dr requester appealed that this is a considerable impact and it is important this is a brief i cannot discretionary review the dr requester was notified of today's meeting and had ample
12:22 am
time to be here. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> christopher i live across the street and am in support of dr the most important thing this was originally called december 4th and the gentleman property it he inflicted the hardship and second this date was inconvention i'm a lawyer in a large firm it's important we requested a few minutes or continuance in good faith mr. morgan couldn't be here i was scheduled to be on a business trip to new york state cancelling a deposition so a continuance is the first request he's had his own request for
12:23 am
continuance and the architect should be here the project needs to be modified thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon madam chair i live on and on in the eery think this is the first time i've come to my meeting a proponent is asking for a continuance the project sponsors architect is not there i understand if their architect was not there or someone was not able to tell their story i appreciate their concern for the project sponsors but this is as the gentleman said just a tactic for a delay i'm not an attorney like the gentleman spoke i'm a neighbor who lives here i know we're working in good faith
12:24 am
please hear this today there's enough resources to tell the story outline and a they want to do a telephone tare story. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners thanks for the moment i'm a neighbor in the sf richmond district and want this meeting to have it took place this evening. >> is there any additional public comment are you the dr requester. >> my husband is out of town as stated and this is going to be difficult if you ask me to make concessions without him so this is really a hardship thank you. >> thank you. is there any
12:25 am
additional public comment public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm going to speak against a continuance only from reading the materials first of all staff is supportive of project and has commented under our pending dr this project will not be referred to the commission and it seems like it is fairly minor situation, however, payroll some changes were made and now a contentions is project didn't contain the changes i don't think we have to continue it if the project that staff is supporting was modified again, we have to figure out what that is we can take care of that tonight i don't know what we're going to gain by having the
12:26 am
architect of the project sponsor here presuming the project sponsor himself and any people speaking on behalf of knows what the project involved. >> commissioner antonini i wanted to clarify this project was revised from as earliest versus back in september i filed a dr and revised since then by not further revised i'm going you referenced was to - >> i'm reading some of the correspond if the attorney for the dr requesters i believe and they're talking about certain things that apparently were in there and not quite there there were changes in the beginning but we can figure out that out
12:27 am
today or another day. >> commissioner richards we're requested by the dr requester one of the dr requesters to continue this because the dr architect. >> in the other architect. >> the earth for the project sponsor is not here and the dr husbands s husband is not here from the last dr the earth are integral to the discussion that's why i ask for a continuance. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i'm omitted to continuance sometimes the architect is not needed (laughter). >> so $0.83 it's clear let's move on everybody is sitting here for hours. >> there's a motion i've not heard a second. >> let's hear the matter and dr requester you have 5 minutes.
12:28 am
>> i'm sorry excuse me. >> thank you. good evening commissioners david lindsey department staff this is a discretionary review for the project on tenth after the property on the east side of the street between dwraer in the inner responding it is rh2 project consists of a rear edition it included 1, 2, 3 story components the 2 and 3 component measures 24 feet in width the 12 foot by 12 foot incorporates a roof deck and provides set back as mentioned earlier and earlier version of the current project was simpleminded in early 2014 and subject to neighborhood
12:29 am
notification in the spring of last year the original project supported the one story component consisted of a deck manufacturing tenth feet in depth with a 5 foot set back on the south side and an 8 foot set back on the other does the discretionary review was scheduled for september 4, 2014, just prior to the hearing the project sponsor enjoyed the department he wished to modify it in a way to modify the notification and the dr hearing was thus continued indefinitely to allow the department to concluding conduct the now modification that occurred last year no additional request for
12:30 am
anothers discretionary review were submitted and the dr request was maintained the dr requesters is sidney morgan and others located adjacent to the north of the subject property the dr requesters concerns are this the project will effect the air and privacy to their home it was revised following the discretionary review and found the following at the massing the proposed edition respects the massing of the neighboring building for the dr requesters the proposed height and depth relate to the north and no windows are proposed to the property line wall that is set back one foot it set back to the light and air to the south t