>> i took staff recommendation. you want to take out recommendation two? i am fine with that. it sounds like there will be more debate about that issue. >> i do want to take that out. >> any mod on that motion commissioners to approve this matter with modifications with exception to modification 2 recommended by staff. (roll call). >> so moved that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner richards voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 162018. 007-2353 c.u.a. 3356-3360 market street. this is a conditional use

authorization. >> good evening, president melgar and members of the commission. planning department staff. the project is a conditional use authorization for the construction of horizontal and vertical addition to two-story over basement three unit dwelling to enlarge existing three units and allow density of one unit per 1500 square feet of lot area to allow a fourth unit. the existing structure was constructed in 1898. historic resource evaluation was conducted and concluded the property was not a resource. properties in the immediate vicinity consist of single family to multi family homes, various design and construction dates. it the two to three story over basement buildings of mixed architectural styles.

buildings vary from single family to multi family. existing structure is 2892 square feet with one studio and two two bedrooms. the enlarged structure would provide four three bedroom units from 1241 square feet to 1781 square feet. it is approximately 33 feet 6 inches with upper floor back 15 feet from front building wall. to date department received two comments expressing concern about the proposed density and potential impact to the shared privately owned driveway between the property between market and core bet. since that time the property owners and project sponsor have met and come to private

agreement to address the concerns of the neighbors. earlier this week i believe they sent a copy town. the neighbors opposition was withdrawn on this week march 5th. staff recommends the approval of the conditional use authorization and that the project is on balance with objectives and policies of the general plan to add additional unit to the city housing stock and enlarge three existing units to create four family sized units. the department finding it is necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not did debtnental to persons or properties in the vicinity. i am available to answer any questions and the project sponsor is here and available to answer any questions. >>. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i am the project architect with tim representing the ownership. i am bringing to you a project that meets the goals and intentions discussed in the policies presented earlier. we have a project which is proposed on a large lot. the lot is about 49 by 110. the size of two city lots. the conditional use will approve the equivalent density as two city lots if it were to have been subdivided. there is an existing building on the lot that will remain. the owners didn't want to demolish it but expand it. that is why there was no subdivision of the lot pursued. as mentioned, the existing

building has two two bedroom units and single studio. the proposal is to add an additional unit so four units, each of which would be three bedroom. family sized units. you know, with modern amenities, and another thing that bears pointing out is that the building is subject to rent control and will remain subject to rent control. in terms of context of the expansion along market street. >> can you go to the overhead. >> so the building with the arrow is the subject property. you can see it in the context of larger multi story three and four story buildings. that section of market is highly mixed, but everything along that edge is at minimum two stories

and often three and four. the proposed building expansion is set back from the principal façade kind of relieving the massing of the building, pushing the massing of the building away from the market street façade in respect to the original structure. the owners worked and met with the core bet heights neighborhood association to develop a memorandum of understanding. the neighbors are here today and i appreciate them being here discussing the use of the private easement or shared easement to the driveway condition at the rear of the property. i would like to thank the planning staff for assistance

with the project and suggested improvements. they made valuable suggestions. i would like to thank the neighbors for being here today. i welcome your comments and questions. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. >> thank you, president melgar and commissioners. i am barbara place and this is gregg and we represent the neighbors 3356 and 3360 market street that you are reviewing the project today. all properties share johns way, a private alley built in 1938. it is narrow the, streep fragile. 15 property owners jointly own

the johns way and 30 rely solely on johns way for access to our homes. a plot map and photos are in your hearing materials today. our primary concern with this project is the continued access and preservation of johns way for the duration of the construction process. in may 2018, we communicated these concerns to the project sponsor and planning department. since receiving the hearing notice we have negotiated with the project sponsor to resolve these concerns. three days ago we signed an agreement with the project sponsor that addresses our concerns including repaving johns way prior to construction. a copy of the signed agreement has been provided to the planning division, planning department and districian 8 soon per visor. in consideration of the signed memorandum the owners and

supporters of johns way alley no longer oppose this conditional use application. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i live next door to the property. i was not aware of this agreement. i still oppose the construction because i can't imagine how they are demolishing the building and one little wall pretend like it is an addition. i can't imagine how to do that with using johns way. number two, i was dismayed by the shortness this issue got in the motion before you how is it possible to demolish and construct a building of this size on the little alleyway. i do appreciate the density

increase we need. this is 260% density increase. i felt the staff did not address the parking. this may be a rent controlling. that is great. rents are not going to be affordable to any sfpd member or teacher. we know people with that kind of income come with cars. there will be 8 or 9 more cars i don't know how they will get on core bit avenue. that is my comments. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? [please stand by] like

wasn't a party to some of this. i think i am generally supportive of the project from a planning standpoint. it's great you're adding onto some of these units to make a

three bedroom, but adding another studio. i i'm supportive. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i see square footage, but where are the percents? >> so in terms of the demo calculation, i'm sorry, i don't have that on hand, but it was under the 50% threshold. so as i understand it, the demo calc includes vertical and horizontal. and then, we were under the 50% threshold. is your copy in color? okay. so obviously, the red areas are -- >> commissioner richards: i heard one comment, the front wall is going to be left and my

ears perked up. >> commissioner hillis: so i move to approve. >> vice chair kop >> vice president koppel: second. >> commissioner richards: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there [roll call] >> clerk: very good, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. that'll place us on item 17, a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president melgar, members of the

commission. jeff horn, planning department staff. [inaudible] >> -- and construct a new 3,715-square foot, two-story-over-garage single-family home are not an r -- in the rh-1 district. the owners and their architect are able to provide commission with details about the soundness and structural issues with the existing home. project size is on the southeast side of vasquez avenue between kensington way and garcia avenue. the 5,000 square foot lot is

upward sloping and has 56'8" of frontage and 8 feet of sloping. the adjacent story to the south is a single-family home and to the north is a two-story single-family home in the similar construction and era of the existing property. the home provides a garage and bedroom at the ground floor, three bedrooms on the second floor, and kitchen, living, and dining areas on the third floor. the home varies in height. the taller north side of the property and reduced on the south side. the third floor is also set back with a variation currently proposed at 7'1/0" and about

12 feet on the north side. this project originally submitted to the department as a addition, but was later found to fit better on a demoand rebuild. packet was submitted by the adjacent neighbors to the northeast at 215 vasquez street and also included letters from several neighbors. an additional letter in opposition on behalf of the residents on 214 vasquez

avenue, and a comment by e-mail earlier this week. staff recommends approval of the c.u. as a replacement building will provide a family sized unit within a structure that is compatible with the massing of the structurother structures. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have a project sponsor?

okay. your time's up -- just kidding, just kidding. [inaudible] >> i believe we're ready. i don't know how to advance to the next image, but i'm going to do my best.

so forward, back, and reverse. all right. and i'm ready. good afternoon, commission. my name's jeff burris. i'm the architect of the project at 225 vasquez. i want to elaborate a little bit on -- i know that we'll talk about the house in particular, and this is a mandate for the new design, but this is a c.u. for a demo, but i do want to talk about the conditions. i'll talk about the current conditions on the existing site, and then i'll talk about the new house. 225 vasquez is the orange roof in the middle. edge hill way is to the left, and you can see the houses on

vasquez. this is vasquez. it runs up the middle. across the street, we have a spanish med terranean on one end, and we have a craftsman house here in the middle. but the three across the street and the one on the corner are developinger projects from 1929 -- developer projects are from 1929 and our project is actually from 1924. the hillside is actually the most dominant area of this site. it's a 33% upslope on our project, and these houses above with 5200, 5500, 3500. they're very large five-story houses that are just to the south of us. as i mentioned, the houses are med terranean revival. we felt like there wasn't a

strong neighborhood characteristic, they're more like a copy of houses done in its day. they reflected the med terranean revival which was very popular. its peak time was in the 20's and 30's, but these are houses reflective of that style. there's another house on this block and it sits four houses to the west. this is the subject property right there, but the four houses to the west were built in 1954. while the houses at 225 and 215, their roofs stop at the facade, they don't pass muster for historical development. this is 225 vasquez, and looking west. so we get to the existing

house. the existing house is about 1100 square feet sitting over a really tall garage. this is kind of the way they did this development in 225 vasquez. they eventually raised the -- all the living spaces is one level, raised it to equilibrium and built a garage above it. you see upstairs, all the spaces exist. i asked -- in terms of the soundness of the existing house, i called an engineer out. we had romig to soils testing, joey technical. the issue is we have the nonpermane nonpermeable soils, and the house is taking the drainage. in terms of the soundness report, the engineer told me well, this house was built to

spec in 1924, but it's failing now, and you can't put any additional weight on it. so while it passes muster by itself, it wouldn't accommodate new. so there's the section of the house and there's this 13-foot retaining wall that's been patched over the years, but that's taken the brunt of the water. so speaking of the engineer, the foundation does need to be replaced if we're going to put extra weight on it, plus, we have an entire drainage system we're going to need to institute. obviously, you can build bigger, but this is not a neighborhood that can accommodate a four-story house. my first reaction we could depress into the hill, but that

wouldn't actually work very well. >> clerk: thank you, sir, your time is up. >> president melgar: they may actually have questions for you. okay. we will now take public comment on this item. i have several speaker cards. catherine darby, karen flynn, peter milky, and bob kielski. >> hi. i guess i'm a little confused about what's going on here because i thought -- >> president melgar: speak into the mic. >> i'm a little confused. i thought each side was going to have 15 minutes to make their presentation. >> president melgar: this is not a d.r. >> in any case, i'll make this as short within the time. my name is catherine darby, and

i live at 215 vasquez, and the reason that i'm here today is to support my family and my neighbors in asking you to turn down this conditional use. we first met with the project sponsor two years ago, and there was 17 neighbors who came to the first premeeting, and we talked about our concerns for the project for how big and bulky it was, how it was going to block our -- the sun light that hits our house, and how we didn't think that a big, modern house was consistent with the style of the neighborhood. so i was looking at the design guidelines, the residential guidelines, and i -- you all, i'm sure know these guidelines, but there's two i'd like to focus on. one has to do with the light -- the right for us to have light to our house, and the other is with the bulk of the house.

as i was looking at the recommendations from the department -- excuse me, i need my glasses -- first of all, the department's recommendation says the project is consistent with the objective with the policies of the general plan. what about design principle number three, which is the one about regarding maintaining light to adjacent properties with adequate set backs? according to the project sponsor, the solar study of the seven-foot third-floor set back will have no effect on the amount of sun light that reaches our house and the houses to the north. number two, the staff says it's compatible with the neighborhood. what about design principle number one which talks about a

building scale and the massing of the building at the front of the property? this building has zero set back on the first and second floor and it has a set back on the third floor. it has no impacts on the homes in the adjacent vicinity. well, what about my home and the homes of my neighbor? mike antonini is going to talk about ways this home can be improved by taking it down about 4 feet or taking it down so that the side that's set back to our house -- is closer to our house. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> we have petitions that have been signed by neighbors within two blocks of the project, all of which think this project goes too far. >> president melgar: thank you very much.

we appreciate your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm karen flynn. my husband and i own the house at 265 vasquez avenue. we're on the blind curve of that diagram. i have three concerns: sun light, the need to protect proper drainage of surface and undergroundwater and safety and traffic which is unique to vasquez avenue. in terms of sun light, our neighborhood doesn't get very much, and this home as proposed will cut down on sun light on the few days we're lucky to get any at all. i request that the commission make stipulations or however you can do that for proper

drainage patterns given the previous history of disturbed drainage both under and above ground. and lastly, my big -- one of my big concerns is traffic and safety because i live on the blind curve on upper vasquez. it's a split street, so i refer to our street as upper vasquez. it's a very narrow. it's a two-way street that's only 15.5 feet wide and as a blind curve as it turns up kensington. any car traveling on vasquez at any time is basically in the path of on coming traffic. only being up on the street edges can cars pass each other. only when parked in our garages or when parked half on, half off the curbs which is not proper, but it's done, it's not able to see beyond those

vehicles. pedestrians are forced to walk in the street to avoid such half and half parked cars, so that's not a solution that works. the big deal for me is upper vasquez ave. is a major swing around thoroughfare for parents dropping off their kids at st. brandon's. once the kids are dropped off, many vehicles scream through the loop on edge hill mountain to get down to the main streets. they hit faster speeds once it straightens out. for whatever project is finally approved, i would like the commission to given our weirdly narrow two-way street require posting signage and safety cautions for speed and pedestrian safety and require that workers trucks and equipment be parked off street where traffic and pedestrian safety will not be negatively affected by obstructed road views or actual sidewalk object

suctions. thank you for your right -- obstructions. thank you for your work to protect all of your property rights. medic >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is peter milke, and i'm against this project in the neighborhood. it's just out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. the structure is too imposing. the houses behind me is further away from my house than the newhouse would be from their neighbors across the street, and i lose two to 2.5 hours of sun light per day. imagine what they will lose. i realize this project is smaller than the houses on edge hill, but if you take an object and move it closer, the result will be the same. i think this house is out of character with the neighborhood, it's too large,

and if it's going to be built, it should be scaled down. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's gary fong, and i disapprove of this build because it's too big, it's too out of character. i've lived here 30 years in the neighborhood, and there's a reason why i bought there, and it's because of the nice character of all the houses. i raised a daughter there with no more than 1300 square feet, so i think this is too gigantic. you don't need it, and it's -- and another thing would be the traffic for all the construction workers. i have to walk -- the cars are all parked half on, half off the sidewalks. so when the construction trucks get there, it's going to be

pretty bad, so that's all i have to say. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. thank you all for your time. i know it's been a long day. kate morgan. i live at 220 vasquez, and i'm speaking on behalf of myself and william morgan. we're directly across from 225 vasquez, and we fully support this project. i'm going to talk about the size of the house, the style of the house, and the way that the neighbor's concerns have been taken into account. one, i live in a 1929 house that's apparently build your grade with decorations across the street and from the back, it's almost four stories tall if you look at the foundation, which is half above ground, but we benefit from being on the lower side of the street so it does not look as imposing from the front. so to me what the neighbors are building is within the scale of the neighborhood. at first, when they showed me

the plans, i was concerned because all of the houses on that side of the street come straight up from the sidewalk. there's no yard in front, they're not set back from the street, and initially, the plans were straight up, three stories. but the third floor is now pushed back, and it's no taller than the house next to it. even though they do have those nice, high ceilings on the third floor, it's actually the same height as the house next door. i think what's requesting is something that would be different, which is right up to the sidewalk. i've seen their taste, i've seen the final design which is not like a box, the way is looks like in the architectural prints. there's wood cladding, there's greenery. these are people who want to have a nice house in the neighborhood, so i think the

style does fit into the neighborhood. and in fact, i think it's a huge way unify the neighborhood. that side is more traditional. this side is more modern. this house is going to bridge the gap. with the wood cladding -- i'm not an expert, but i watch a lot of fixer upper, and a lot of do it yourself. it's a huge improvement over what's there now. i've seen them work with the neighbors. they've made so many changes to the plan. i'm sure it's all in your records, but it's changes that they wanted to make. i'm sure it's not changes that they were interested in, it's so in response to the neighbors. it's not what the neighbors want, it's their house. as a family in san francisco, i'd like to see families

supported and building and improving neighborhoods and investing and having more kids attend school and just help, you know, building and for this neighborhood kind of help finance the future of san francisco. i heard the ding so ill stop talki talking but my next-door neighbor had to leave to breast feed her baby, so she submitted these photos. >> clerk: just leave them right there. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. michael antonini. i've always been a champion for families trying to do a demoor trying to fulfill their needs. as i've pointed out in my mailings to you and my these pictures that are being passed out now, this house as now designed will have a

significant impact to light and area to 215 vasquez. remember, they get no sun light in the afternoon because of edge hill. if this is not modified some way, they're going to lose a significant portion of that. i have some very simple suggestions to make. first of all, there are two proposes wings of this house. the wing that's labelled of living room has floor to ceiling heights of 14 feet. i think that's a little excessive. you could easily trim off 4 feet of that section and add 4 feet of light to the adjacent property. the other wing labeled dining room has a height of 111'2". the neighbors at 215 vasquez is closer to the street. it only has a set back of about 7 feet, whereas the other side has a set back of 11 -- over

11 feet. by flipping the two, there are two advantages. number one, you put up a shield of the owners of 225 of the winds off the pacific. you put a bigger deck on the eastern side, and because of this bigger deck, you put in a lot more light to them. obviously, they could have a little bit more set backs on the first and second floors which are right at the property line. there are some design changes. i don't think concrete blocking are appropriate for a new home in san francisco. i haven't seen that in about 60 years on a newhouse. i would ask if you aren't going to make those changes for this house before you approve, please continue this for a month, however long you have to to analyze this, make those common-sense changes. the sponsors get a really nice house, the neighbors get a house that's not having so much

of an impact and is more contextural with the homes of the neighborhood. thank you very much, commissioners. [please stand by]

>> next speaker, please. i'm sorry. i can't hear you. can you please come up. >> only if they ask for questions. your time to speak was in project presentation time. >> any other public comment on this item? with that public comment is closed. commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: can you show us the front façade. you didn't get to finish. i am not necessarily asking you to go through the whole presentation. >> show you what the building looked like? >> you didn't get to that. that is the crux of the issue

here. can you just talk a little bit about what concessions you or what you might have done to prefer the concerns to the neighbor to the east? speak into the microphone. >> you can't hear me? >> the house that i started to describe, the existing house had a 13-foot garage level and 9-foot living level. this is an illustration i was going to show of the existing house. it is a little bit what we did was we lowered the bottom floor down to 8' 5". we lowered the bedrooms to 9' 7". we put that space on top. they wanted a big living room.

this is the trade-off. the result is that the new house at 35066 is 7 -- 3506 is 10 inches higher than the peak of the existing house. it looks like it is designed to look uplifting. it is only 7-foot 10s" taller than the existing gable. i can talk about the shadow studies. >> i think now is the time to respond the questions. he brought up when i looked at it, it looked contextually you could have the taller portion of you're new building adjacent to the taller building there now. his notion of switching that side of the building that is taller, kind of stepping down

towards the lower building at 215. did you consider that? and why? >> i did. to eliminate the negative impact on the neighbors. this is not a case of a three story wing next to a two-story wing. if we switched them you would still have a three story house. we did extensive shadow studies on the existing house. what we foun we found a three sy house created 1500 hours. they currently have 910 hours. that is 50% increase. no change to three story building would change that number for the better. we felt there was no negative impact. why put the taller section on the east and not the west? all of the entries.

the internal setup when you go to the site the hill is closer on the west and when you build on that site the darker or more shadows on the right and lighter on the left. since we were not creating adverse shadow experience and increasing. we moved entrance to the middle. internals of the house if we flipped the living room would be dark the kitching light. the master bedroom light and master bath dark. the way the house is set up. it is stair stepped. >> what would the impact if you reversed that? >> i know this is a bit. see the 1954 modernist development that is our west flank. there is a strong retaining wall

at 215 that is the east plank. you have abbaba finish. you finish modern string and start the older house. i peel people it is on eye -- the house is stepped in a a way to address the hill. you are putting the bigger part in the hill and the smarter part is on the hill. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: a bit surreal from the first minute we started this commission meeting i have mentioned the supersizing of san francisco and 10,000 millionaires minted this year. we went through the a.d.u. and the homes and here we come to ceu turning 1240 square got home. it is a long day to 3715 square

foot home. it was bought in 12, 9, 2016. 1,000,210. it is up $250,000. it is a big piggy bank you are saving money and appreciating. 3715 gross square feet house in this neighborhood basically new construction is going for 5 to $6 million. on the planning code section 101. the city's supply of affordable housing enhanced it is a proposal to demolish. there will provide a well designed single family home that contains a total net gain of additional bedrooms. i don't think it is helping affordability. having been through the a.d.u. and i talked about demolishing single family homes. you need to dense fi.

this is not necessary or desirable to knock this down. without a.d.u. in there. you will be gone in 50 years. you can address this but i am not going to vote yes unless there is an a.d.u. >> they are planning on building a family of five, i don't know. at least five. we are building the house so they can live in it. eventually the children will move away. in conference with planning and working with jeff horn we created the bedroom on the lower level easy to could bevert to a.d.u. later. this is a 3100 square foot house over a 700 potential a.d.u. >> i recommend we wait until the a.d.u. passes so we get to demolish the house. that is my recommendation.

>> any other comments? somebody want to make a motion? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: we have been talking about density equity and demolishing homes with the intent that what is being built, it has to find a balance between potentially adding a unit in rh-1 and my tenancy would be to see that this home even if it is being used as single family omahas a.d.u. built in from the get-go. i think that would be a way of dealing with it. that still does not address many of the neighbors' concerns. i do not know how to go about addressing them because there will be shadow no matter what. when you build a building in a different shape, there will be

shadows. since we are not regulating shadow as we do with dedicated open space, it is a very difficult call to make. perhaps mr. winslow can address that in terms of residential new construction in shadow. >> as far as residential design review when we assess the building we do it in a cursory way in terms of looking at the building as we look at the rest of the impacts of the massing. when i say this it is without shadow studies. my understanding i think was mentioned in the hearing the project sponsor does have such shadow studies. if asked could present those now or at a later date to assess the quantitative impacts of shadow on the adjacent property.

>> the shadow would have to be evaluated relative to rooms it falls on what time of the day and what time of the year. we have seen the pictures however we do not have any information as to the rooms which are being affected and the overall living arrangement on the affected properties. the question still as policy question for the rest of the commission is to really reflect on this while the substantial enlargement of the unit in a demolition situation and not providing a.d.u. which is policy discussion we addressed over and over again. i can rattle off six, eight, 10 projects. i am looking for somebody to push a button to talk to that. >> commissioner koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: s in this neighborhood. i am okay overlooking that

today. i agree with commissioner richards in the fact that this house could use an a.d.u. is there something we can do today to help guarantee that from happening now later? i am just talking to the staff here. >> mr. winslow. >> the question is could the commission take an action to approve the house with the condition that the a.d.u. be added assuming the legislation passes? >> i think the condition would be a sign-off or issue of the building permit contingent on this legislation passing. i don't know who would craft that condition now if that is appropriate. >> it is taking the project that

requires re-zoning that you do that in other situations. i look to you for a little bit of help here. >> i guess the question is, is the commission concerned about whether they can impose an a.d.u. requirement based on the fact that that legislation has not passed yet? is that the question. >> because the project sponsor offered it. >> my understanding the project sponsor has come somewhat close to proposing or designing an a.d.u. it is not uncommon for this commission to say they are uncomfortable with the project as proposed but would consider something with higher density. you could send it back and let the sponsor work with staff and come back with an a.d.u. that would give you more time. that is my recommendation to

give everybody breathing room. if i could just add if commissioner moore's question about shadow studies is something to also address you could add that they include the shadow studies in whatever information they provide with the further application. >> thank you. commissioner richards i am not comfortable with granting a ceu for demolition of a structure that is perfectly sound. it is not sound for an expansion of the square footage, and the consistent policy of this commission was the you are adding that we want to see more density. because the legislation doesn't currently allow it, i cannot support the demolition of this sound structure that could be

affordable to someone. i could even accommodate an a.d.u. as it is in the garage, you know, but i am not ready to support it today. it could come back after the legislation is passed. there is any number of things that can happen. i wanted to sort of say that. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i think the sponsor is playing by the rules. we see these after the fact. there is a permit and they ask forgiveness. i applaud your playing by the rules. i move to continue the project until when that legislation -- probably a couple months. >> that is a reasonable guess. >> for staff to work with the project sponsor to redesign. >> for the legislation as well. >> as well as to give the legislation time to catch up and be passed which we are certain

it will be to make us in come -with state law. >> >> commissioner hillis: is there a motion? >> i did. >> commissioner hillis: to continue to when? >> may 9th. >> no second? >> shall we call the question? >> is a motion seconded to continue the matter to may 9th. (roll call). >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that places us on item -- a new discretionary review calendar for 216 head street. discretionary review. please note on january 24, 2019

after hearing and closing public comment you continued this to today for additional information by 5-0 vote. commissioners were absent. commissioner koppel you need to acknowledge you reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> vice president joel koppel: . >> good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. this is continuians of the review heard on january 24th to construct a three story single family house. the reason for the iians filed by mark christian son of the triangle neighborhood association was to allow documentation of existing condition and requirements of the neighbors' property line windows. it was claimed the windows served as the only window

serving a bedroom and the blockage of light could be considered exceptional and extraordinary. the d.r. requester asked for a five foot wide side set back on the north side to serve the neighbor's existing window. staff's recommendation. the windows are not protected this does appear to serve as the only bedroom window as you have in your memorandum package. after consultation with the staff, we recommend that a reasonable accommodation for the window would be to provide a three foot deep by five or six foot wide light well to accommodate the use of noncomplying window for purposes of light and air and maintenance of the window. there was also an issue raised about the window and the function as egress or emergency

access. staff does not recommend a side yard for the purposes of emergency access as the window does not now domapply with the code -- window does not comply should is five foot set back be provided. the emergency path of access cannot cross another's property line. with this the staff recommends approval of the project as revised in the exhibit by the project sponsor. this concludes my presentation. i am here to answer questions. >> we have heard this item before. we will limit the d.r. requesters comments to three minutes. >> i am hark christian son, vice president of the triangle