buena vista avenue. from 1999-2005 i lived at buena vista avenue west. i just learned about this project. i'm no longer in the neighborhood. i was one of the dr requesters for the home at 611 buena vista avenue west when it was first proposed in 2002. that's why i'm here today. i participated in the meetings with the project sponsor and the architects. along with the neighbors i thought we had reached and agreement about the size of the home along with the landscaping. a few years later i followed up with the architect and the landscaping was not installed as promised. i had been told that martin assured this board that they were told they would about would the story on the home in a future time when his finances permitted and we expressed no objection. i would assure that i would have never withdrawn my dr if that were the case. i recently reviewed some letters that i september a letter in 2004 after the construction was completed to the planning department asking about the process being certain that the actual agreement was being enforced. in that letter i referenced quote, the final app

item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s.request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks