d.r. requesters. i'm not sure i can immediately cut my presentation down to three minutes, but i will certainly try. you are suggesting i just bring a hard copy? i represent the family who you have the building immediately next door to the west. the department's review and analysis of the site missed a lot of important facts. first there was a notice of special restrictions recorded against this property, that as exhibit 5. and it limits the property to just being a single-family dwelling, although it is an r.h. two zone, and the second thing they missed is that there are currently nine unfinished, on finalized, uninspected permits on this building. it has never had a permit finished on this building, and i talked to the zoning administrator scott sanchez and i spoke to joe duffy and he said an application should never have been accepted into these parents are resolved, and i attached all those unfinished permits for your review, so one of the big issues these informants -- unfinished permits because

d.r. requester his. since before i was even involved and considering how close we were to a compromise, we have given them everything they have asked for. it is really disappointing to be here with them asking for more, and with the demands that are totally out of left field. here -- the project is of no significant impact on any neighbors' amenities. so what is this about? the d.r. requester his to the west of the property have two -- on the overhead, please, have two frosted, inoperable lot line windows at the rear of their building. these windows are not necessary to provide light or air. there is an entire wall of fenestration for light and air and views to these rooms, nearly four times as much as is required. here are the calculations. one of these lot line windows is always covered with blinds, and the other window usually has clothes piles -- clothes piled against it. these are frosted windows. in any event, unless we agree to notch the northwest corners of the lot line windows there are preserve

d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. and if the other d.r. equester wanted to speak, now would be your turn. whatever you guys want. >> you get two minutes. you get to decide how to split it up. >> i saw some headshaking, and i heard once again the proponent talk about four-story buildings. first of all, there is not a four-story building next to the subject property, it is a three-story building. there is an existing four-story building built in the eighties directly across from the project in the our h3 district. as a result of that construction , much of the neighborhood was down zoned, and the height limit was reduced from 30 feet to 30 feet. that building could not be built today, but it should not be used as an example to justify this over scale project. if we go to section 711, it is pretty clear. it says the intent of the small-scale district control is to provide for mixed-use buildings which approximate or slightly exceed the standard development pattern in the and see two district. this is not slightly exceeding the standard develop

d.r. requester is here today and we are asking that they the hearing be moved from may 12th to may 5th. sorry, september. >> that is for both 2220 and 2230. >> yes, sir,. >> number 18, is this the time to mention comments on the plans for the construction or is that later? >> if it is heard today, the that would be the opportunity to speak. but right now we are taking of the matter of the continuance itself. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on the items proposed for continuance? with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner richards? >> move to continue all items as proposed including item 15 and the gentleman who had the d.r., the d.r. requester, to sometime in september, jonas, i will defer to you. >> i understand it is being proposed for continuous until september 12, i believe they requested to move it up to september 5th. is that right? >> yes. >> in regards to item 18, until june 13th. >> okay. [indiscernible] >> it is not coming from the project sponsor. >> that was the call of the chair. there are issues that still need to be resolved for the project and i would

one is being able to see the changes as requested in the d.r. , the second was exploration of a three-storybuilding with the removal of a portion of or all of the ground floor commercial space to accommodate three units. >> is that what you said, commissioner moore? >> and he should be working that out with mr. winslow and the department, rather then if we make a motion to ask for something, which she does not believe as possible, we are approving something, for all intensive purposes used to be put between planning and the applicant to be right or wrong. i don't have a clue that way. i want us to make a motion. however, if you are saying it doesn't work, then you need to work that out with the department. >> i would say that i support this project as it is. i do think that you could work with staff to do the things that they intend. i think it is workable. i trust mr. winslow's magic. [laughter]. >> i will say that, you know, the thing about the commercial space, i worry quite a bit about our commercial space around the city, particularly places like cortland, 24th street, ocean avenue, th

appellant said that she's made requests on certain questions and she made those to you or to the architect? >> she has e-mailed troy a couple times -- right after the d.r. which delayed us, we're a five-month delay at this point. she sent troy an e-mail with photographs of the cracks that you have in your packets. so troy put it to the structural engineer and the structural engineer said that he didn't see any issue with those cracks and they were really cosmetic or minor and not indicative of any significant problems with our foundation -- [ please stand by ] >> the capacity of the foundation because the foundation itself is bearing on the underlining sediments and structures. that has a certain ability to withstand the loads imposed on it, and if the structure or the sediment below it is adequate, the code allows a assumed value for what a foundation of a given size can support. that is what was used. the engineer didn't feel this particular crack was an issue. >> thank you. that was an excellent explanation. >> mr. sanchez. >> i like how you are pointing at joe. nice. >> d.b.i. building before planning. >> this permit remove fireplace in living room