d.r. requester? if you are a d.r. requester, your time was then. are you the d.r. requester? >> yes. >> you will have a two-minute rebuttal, but those were your five minutes that she took. >> are you insinuating i'm short? >> no, i just said you can't -- >> no, not now. you took her five minutes. that was the five minutes from the d.r. requester. you will have a two-minute rebuttal after we hear from the project sponsor. >> thank you. >> wait, wait. we have to hear from the project sponsor first. >> let us hear from the project sponsor first. thank you. unless there is public comment. is there public comment beyond the d.r. requester who wants to speak? okay. sir, project sponsor, you are the project sponsor? sorry. it is a little confusing sometimes, this format. >> good evening, commissioners. tim young, the project sponsor. we have been working on this project for almost three years now. and just to address the the d.r. requesters are making, first of all, the initial image of the rendering wasn't really accurate. i have more accurate rendering of how the massing is compar

d.r. requester. and in that case they were seeking a deck that was directly accessible from the main living level. the rear yard living space that is directly accessible from the main living floor and is just a stair, i don't see the necessary variance. and i can't support the variance application. >> just a question, mr. sanchez. can they access to garage deck through the garage? >> a they may be able to do so to make that happen without a variance, but it would be more complicated. >> all right. we can move to the next item. number 19, 2420 taraval street, discretionary review, case 2017-004301drp-02. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president hillis. before you are two questions for building application 2017-03242277 associated with the proposed project at 2420 taraval street. the project proposes a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of an existing single family home to accommodate two additional residential units. the project also includes legalization of the raising of the subject prop

d.r. requester. who is the d.r. requester here? who is the d.r. requester? >> i received an e-mail that the d.r. requester, three of the d.r. requester his might not attend. they may not make it. >> president hillis: there is only one, right? >> there were four parties on the request. >> president hillis: is a project sponsor here? all right. do you know the d.r. requester? [laughter] >> president hillis: do you know where they went? ok. why don't we hear from you. take three minutes and tell us about the project. gets a little awkward without the d.r. requester or you could tell us how you would have voted on the whole foods project. [laughter] >> that was really interesting. i thought your points were really interesting. and the whole delivery thing was interesting. if you are sick or disabled, -- >> president hillis: i was only kidding. >> anyway. [laughter] >> good afternoon or good evening. thank you for your time. thank you for your opening remarks and recommendations on the project. my name is david heath. i'm the owner of 1871 green street which beca

d.r. request, the d.r. equester of 1010 dolores is concerned with speculation of the future use of the garage structure as an accessory dwelling unit and associated issues related to that. and two, further impacts to the use, density and safety of mercy alley with respect to parking and residents. the department has received no letters of opposition, and no letters of support. in light of the d.r. requesters concerns, we have re-reviewed and found one there is a pattern of garages and uncovered parking on mercy that provides access and preserves landscaped front setbacks along this portion of chattanooga to be uninterrupted by curb cuts and driveways. and number two the garage structure is compatibly sized. the future use is speculative and not regulated by our planning code. and with this the staff finds the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommend the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed as it doesn't present a circumstance that would justify. it might b

d.r. request. we feel for the d.r. requester. i already told to start working with the rent board for compensation, something have to be compensated. i can answer any question you have. >> all right, you still have three more minutes. but if your presentation is over, we can hear a rebuttal from the d.r. requester. sorry, public comment in support of the project sponsor, come on up. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm actually the son of the sponsor. should i speak now or in the rebuttal? >> you can speak in the rebuttal, you are part of the project team? >> still have two and a half minutes. you still have time. >> i just want to address a couple points that were brought up. it was pointed out that my mother lives two blocks away, that is true and in a five-bedroom home that is also true. the entire reason why she and i will eventually move back to 20th avenue is because she doesn't want to live in a five bedroom home. she wants to live on a single flat where she doesn't have to walk up the stairs to go to her bedroom. the point

d.r. requester is adjacent property to the south. the reasons for the d.r. request are two. first impacts to light and air. impact to privacy. public comment to date. department has received no letters of support or opposition. in light of the concerns department rereviewed the project with the residential guidelines. vertical expansion by racing the roof and adding dormers is sensitive with minimal increase in height. it is approximately 20 feet away from d.r. requester's windows due to the 17-foot side yard and three foot deep light well to the south. location of the subject building to the north allows indirect light. in your package you can see renditions of that. the difference between the current and existing. number two. additional pairs of windows and dormers are appropriately sized and located to not present any you privacy. it meets the standards and guidelines and you approve the project. it does not present any extraordinary conditions to justify further conditions to the code compliant project. this concludes my presentation. >> d.r. requester. welcome. you have

d.r. requester appealed the project's categorical exemption. this is highly unusual given the project is a small rear addition staff reevaluated the project and came to the same conclusion. there are no impacts and issued a new proposal. we support the project and have recommended proposal -- -- approval as proposed. >> president hillis: you know we are just hearing whether to continue this or not? >> yes. i would just, in addressing the continuance, we asked that the commission help us to set up a meeting with the d.r. requester and try to work out a resolution to this project. you can imagine how frustrating it has been for my client, providing additional architectural and engineering studies for this. he paid $15,000 in staff time for the second categorical exemption. we ask that this be the final continuance. it will be heard on november 29 th and hopefully we can set up a meeting with the d.r. requester. >> president hillis: thank you any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? seeing none, we will close publ

d.r. request earn. rent control is not regulated by the planning department. third, removal of ground level garages and infill of u with accessory dwelling units serves the city in a number of ways. one, fulfills adding housing stock in an existing building, activates the ground floor, removes curb cuts with the cars entering and exiting the garages. the removal of garages increases the available on-street parking in the neighborhood and other street scape improvements such as planting of trees. lastly, it seismically strengthens the goals. it meets the department standards and guidelines and recommends the staff approve it. it does not accept exceptional circumstances. i might add that we have our a.d.u. team lead in the audience to answer any a.d.u. specific questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. d.r. requester? not here. project sponsor here? is there anybody who wants to speak on behalf of the dr? no. okay. project sponsor. use the big mic there. you can use that one. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect for the project. >>

d.r. requester? not here.

d.r. requester. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mr. sanchez. at august 8th, there was a hearing on eye roof deck. relevant conversations by the commissioner moore, one roof deck can destroy the quality life for many. need to balance how much of a roof deck one should have. commissioner richards, backyard is supposed to be where open space is. roof decks facilitate large living and large profits. roof decks are good for multi-family buildings. this is a single-family house. they're increasing it 41%. we're not saying a word about the house. they have an existing backyard. they want to build a new deck off the back of the house. we're not saying a word about that. they have an illegal garage roof. they're going to legalize it. and they want to have a proposed fourth deck on the top of the building. one of the decks, the second of three decks they need a variance for. so right now, they're in front of you for two roof decks, three decks, four open spaces, adding up to 900 square feet. they're claiming the garage deck is for their family. i don't w

d.r. requester requested three weeks. >> i affirmatively said continuing. i support continuance and make a move that we do. >> second to that motion. thank you for clarifying. >> this is for clarification, items 13 a and b. are proposed for continuance to november 8th . >> correct. >> very good. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue item one to december 20th and items 13 to november 8th. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. >> also continue item 13 b. for the variance to november 8th as well. thank you. that places us under commission matters. i jumped to his consideration of adoption draft minutes for october 4th close and regular hearings. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for october 4th. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously. item three as commissioner comments and questions. >> i have one brief question. in our packet there were two pages compliance of land dedication

d.r. requester's property. what can be done is windows that definitely mitigate any sound transmission. >> they will stop any other appeals. >> u yo need to speak into the mic. >> the neighbor on the side couldn't accept the squishing down of the roof next to the lightwell because she believed she had access to more light and i had to explain to her you don't have access to the neighbor's property for any light. i think she's come to terms with that is not going to go and work out and we may not take d.r. and the neighbors get nothing. >> motion to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. >> second. >> and that doesn't preclude you from continuing the discussion and making those changes. so the motion and a second. >> an indeed there is. on the motion to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. commissioner fong fong. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner koppel. >> a commissioner moore. >> a commissioner richards. >> a commissioner melgar. >> and commissioner president hillis. that motion passes unanimously 7-0

d.r. application and sees if any additional changes need to be made to the project based on new information and staff did a request of additional changes to the project which were made that's why the planning commission approved the project this year. project is completely code compliant and noted by staff and the residential design guidelines. the applicant has put forward a revision regarding the garage and having, rather than two parking spaces, an additional bedroom at that floor that would appear to comply with the planning code and any issues with that revision and that the board supported could be adopted as a revision here. generally interior revisions, such as that, can be done under the addenda process and addenda or not appeal able to this board but i think in spirit of transparent z. it'trancetranspae applicant has put forward that change because there are changes at the rear of the building. it's good that the entire project can be reviewed by the board. i'm available for my questions. >> the second unit does not additional space. >> so there's no variances required for this property? >> right. >> and

d.r. was filed of the building permit which was then brought forward to the planning commission who then substantially reduced that proposal in size. that was subsequently withdrawn by the project sponsor's request, so that was kind of shelved for all intents and purposes by the former owner of the site. in february of 2014, the project sponsor filed a new building permit, proposing a code complying alteration as well as another existing addition which included a vertical addition and horizontal addition to the building. the department worked fairly exhaustively with the sponsor. we typically do works iteratively with the sponsor. so items get reduce index size and volume as perwhat -- based on what they kind of provide to us. and ultimately, i guess i'll focus a little bit on two kind of main items that the appellants are bringing up, particularly with regard to the rear yard as well as the compliance with the residential design guidelines. i think two things are getting conflated and confused in the discussion of both. planning code section 134 outlines a rear yard for most residential buildings, particularly in the rh-2 zoning requirement. this building has a baseline requirement of 45%. the