but i think the primary issue with the appellant has to deal with the stair to the roof and the stair penthouse. looking at the orientation i would have guess that the blockage of the sun occurs relatively late in the afternoon. given that the penthouse is almost directly due west of the appellant's property. which means the southern sun is what provides most of the light and sunlight into rear yard and will continue as it tracks across the sky somewhere late afternoon where the penthouse will have any impact on the supplement. -- sunlight. at that time the sunlight is very low on the horizon and as was stated by a number of people, i find the impact here is modest and minimal. i think the appellant should accept the offer of the permit hold er to put glass in the stair and enhances their stairs and will add a little bit of transparentcy and light through that wall. >> i agree. i don't have anything else to add. >> me neither. i think the only thing i was concerned about was the light as well the technicality and any concern about clarification can be questions on the plans, at this point shoul

we asked him about, we told him several things we can do to the stair penthouse and he didn't want to discuss anything that still included a penthouse. he was unwilling to engage in a conversation. i wanted to provide a safe and comfortable home to my two siblings and another family. we respectfully request you deny this appeal and allow this to move forward. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, as you can tell miss pres a has gone in the exact way that we have wanted them to go about these ways. she held a meeting and took input from neighbors and all this was before she filed for a building permit. and as joe who owns the property who is the most affected by the property is here tonight in approval of it. she's accepted every modification that has been requested. it's been reduced and also keep in mind there is a 4 inch pit. the penthouse now is only 8 feet 5 inches. any impact that it has is modest. it's setback 3 fourths of an inch. it slopes down and falls in the stairs and slopes again towards the front. most importantly you will see if i can get the project or, the appellant

materials, and colors, and reduced the size of, lowered the height of and shifted the location of the stair penthouse which caused them to have to redo the interior design, the proposed addition from 1300 square feet to less than 850 square feet. and 8 months ago, the planning common hearing and in the end took it for the purpose of pulling the wall back three feet specifically as a designed gesture to insure the ability of the home at 601, and there is month protected view shed involved the subject view is a momentary one from a location in the public street. the commission specifically declined to pull the wall back any more than three feet. out of concern with the resulting interior space would be too small and that is correct. appellants make much of the effect that they have undertaken a survey showing a house at 601 is further from the street and the home at 615 closer to the street than we have thought. and per the document submitted now, there may have been a measurement error in 2002 that was carried forward into this process and thus we have now provided a new corrected site plan the upshot