commissioner moore: treads on the wooden stair, aside from the top stair and the bottom stair are, i think, an issue of the code. i do not think that you can necessarily require a subsurface on every step but i am not quite sure. that is something that needs to be required and how it is detailed and how it is done. not only do you have a wooden stair, the only way it is done as the top and bottom stair have -- has a change in material indicating where the stair and and where it starts. so you do not just keep going and falling. i am not on top of the code. >> and want to clarify the proposed stairs -- i wanted to clarify that the proposed stairs are steel. commissioner moore: i thought it was woodlynne. >> the current proposal in this application is a smaller steel staircase. commissioner moore: that is a bunch of other issues. for some reason i thought it was a replacement as a wooden stair. the steel stairs are notoriously loud. they're like an instrument which vibrates when you go down the stair and that in itself is a big issue. >> this deal stairs were proposed -- the steel stai

the stairs. if cost is an issue here, i think it's the most efficient way to resolve this. so what i'd like to put on the table if we could agree for him to reinstate -- take out a new permit, to install stairs that's cost efficient to the homeowner and the fees that are -- we're looking at here now, which i believe is $1900. >> $1038. >> to reduce that down to $100 or something. that's the most constructive way to solve this at this point. >> i would be totally agreeable to that. >> we have to come up with solutions here and i can see that would be a good solution for all parties involved and for the commission, i think that's the way we should take this. >> commissioner mar. >> i'd be amenable to that solution. here's the thing that's a stickler for me as to time because while i'm sympathetic to the homeowner, but it's been a long time and we have to solve it. i would support mr. mccarthy's proposal but give it a time certain thing. you have to pull p the permit for the stairs, finish in a cert

it's still three units either way without the stair or was the stair. it adds convenience for my clients, but what is critical here is to get expansion pore their living space. >> okay. i think that would be any preference to take dr and remove the stair and approve the project. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >> this is an extreme case and i would still like zoning administrator sanchez to come back and fill us in a little bit of where some of these oversights were or where people come forward and they are not inexperienced people, we have to all admit that, come forward and point to issues in the code, that we are either not using frequently, or aren't versed with? we're very clear about the internal stairs. mr. lindsey, director rahm secretary ionin, commissioner antonini, and all of the commissioners who have been here for the last three, four, five, seven, eight, nine years plus have gone through this internal stair thing many, many times. and we have altered projects or sent them back when that stair wa

with the option to add a circular stair or delete the entire stair but have an internal stair to the roof top on top of the bedroom and i can give mr. washington the sketch of what that can look like. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, are we retaining the decks in the back or what? >> if you are asking me, i retain the back, the decks in the back. i eliminate the eastern deck on the bedroom floor, have an internal stair coming up to the roof of the bedroom roof, pull this back by two or three feet so that it stays away from the level below. and then the stairs, either an additional circular stair coming from the bedroom going down or this stair goes away all together and the lower deck remains as it it. >> if you eliminate the circular stair, then there's no access between the floors, is that correct? >> the access and internal stair. there's an internal stair already. >> i mean on the outside, there's no connection between the decks. >> no. based on the loose interpretation of the modified code and single residential three stories, you do not need a secondary [inaudible]. that was th

the stairs. if cost is an issue here, i think it's the most efficient way to resolve this. so what i'd like to put on the table if we could agree for him to reinstate -- take out a new permit, to install stairs that's cost efficient to the homeowner and the fees that are -- we're looking at here now, which i believe is $1900. >> $1038. >> to reduce that down to $100 or something. that's the most constructive way to solve this at this point. >> i would be totally agreeable to that. >> we have to come

stairs are stairs are scarce. there are many ways to design stairs.ould like the planning department to track that because there are possible ways to treat it in an architectural way that is compatible an interesting. that does not affect the motion or the position the commissioner is taking on it. but i would like to pose it as a challenge looking ahead. commissioner antonini: i can certainly understand the d.r. requester her's -- the d.r. requester's concerns. it does not sound like there are a lot of options on this assuming that the stairs are not repairable. i have been in some of these buildings, and in recent days, i go very slowly down is a because they are very steep and you could have an accident really easily if you are not careful. i would think the run would be more gradual on the new stairs. i do not think there is too much we can do on this other than not take d.r. unless it is found out that there is a way to repair the existing stairs. >> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.

the permit on appealing pertains to the exterior stairs. the stairs one side mr. chin's building on the other side an are attached to our building. mr. chin does not deny the stairs ever attached our building and cross our property line evidenced by him state negligent brief it crosses the line photos in exhibit b in the brief. photos in the plan not guilty perimism since the stair case is attached his build and on the other side to our building, it requires 2 permits one for his and one for our building. the building code states no building regulated should be altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demo. unless a separate permit for each building. so mr. chin wants to repair the stairs 2 permits are required and he wants to move the stairs 2 permits are required. if mr. chin wants to remove or improve the stairs 2 permits are required. we don't understand the new idea mr. chin out lines regarding the connectors acrossing the property line. the regardless half is new idea for the stair case is 2 permits are required one for ours and one for mr.

approved the stair penthouse to the roof deck i decided to remove that and replace that with stairs sins this was the request of michael smith there are 4 key elements one i used the footprint and volume that was previously approved and two gave back the addition volume of lightwell a larger set back there telethon the roof deck and 3 set back the open stairs from the west property line an 8 feet sect and finally move the backward circle last year stairs 5 feet away from the april it is smaller than previously approved in the dr hearing so the penthouse had been allowed the penthouse would be considered volume i could have used for access to the roof deck i gave back a lot of volume from the lightwell the volume is smaller than previously approved the residential design team sports or supports the designs and it meets the design lines and code because of the different was i had 3 planners and architects i've been caught in the catch-22 i stand before you, you than - whatever way i shouldn't have had to pay for the 311 and the staff dr i'll leave it up to you to feel if so is fair an

the circular stair. the issue of privacy that is raised, as one goes down, the spiral staircase would have the same . did given that it is barely above what the code mandated, it appears it is based on the heights that has to transition downward. it appears it is code- compliant, and i would support the merger. good >> i share in my sentiments which are already expressed. i find it troubling communications were not air between the neighbors, because if you are putting improvements in your house, presumably you are going to be there for a while. >> i will move to deny the appeal and of hold the permanent. >> you would be moving to uphold the release of suspension. you might suggest you have no error. >> we have a motion to deny this appeal, of pulled the order on the basis there was no error -- uphold the order on the basis there was no abuse of discretion. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the zoning administrator is of help. >> we will take a break. 10 minutes.

salmon -- circular stairs? >> no, but everyone is trying to comply with the law to make it as minimal as possible while still maintaining the safety. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am helping the project sponsor on this appeal. the architect is also here. first, there are a lot of things discussed that are not before you, and i do not expect to address somthem, but i want to assure you everything was done with proper permits for the work that was going to be performed and inspections along the way for the work that was being done, including the stairs, so the same complaint was made commoto ddi -- dbi and the plang committee. they gave him the time to be deliberate in researching what happened, and he did the review and came to the conclusion of the stairs to meet code and were properly released. that is the beginning and the end of what this appeal is about. of course the circular staircase is going to take less space. it is no longer code compliant. when you build stairs, they are the minimum

and the building you must remove the stairs first then remove the fill if you want to put the stairs back that's fine but not place a surcharge open the wood two on the wall and third in so doing if you look at the footing that footing sits on old file i hope a new design will properly design the foundation so it sits on competent material like the that's the issue the fill is a recent fill as recorded by connecticut insuring that is an excellent geotech firmer you have to take the stairs do you think that's the issue here that's the issue as far as, mr. dui listency it was because of his injection into the planner that is being removed and new one being built if it wasn't for him we have another issue with the planner thank you very much. >> thank you project sponsor you have the rebuttal. >> commissioners, i have no other information to add out of respect for our time i'll wave them. >> that clicks the public hearing portion. >> commissioner richards. >> i i guess i recalled a situation where a neighbor built something up against my house we came to an agreements i sad with the nei

is the issue with the offseting of the stair width of the driveway, or the fact that the stairs is being offset? >> it is kind of a two faceted issue. we both felt that in keeping that straight run, to a certain extent kind of maintains the historic character of the problem, and the street scape. so we felt that that would be more in compliance with the secretary of interior standards and on the other side the residential design guidelines express that she should be kept as narrow as possible essentially. more so just allowing for cars to enter into garages rather than being kind of a parking lot type of space. and so the residential design team has expressed that they would like to see the width of the driveway remain the same as well. >> as well as keep the stairs straight? >> there was no stance on the stairs from the residential design team. >> okay. commissioner pearlman? >> i am wondering if there were any historic photos before the garage might have been put in, because clearly those are different stairs, you know the stairs that start at the landing point and go up to the house a

if you walk down the old stairs or side stairs and all of that land adjacent to those stairs belongs to the city and you will see a gate with the wood and you will see a gate and they are always see through and open. they cannot put a barrier up for the people to realize that is not where it should go. and that is the kind of stairway that is allowed. by the dpw. and that is kind of the gate that is allowed by the dpw and they keep it locked and it does not allow the people to come down. anybody that looks at the side of this plan will see that the stairway that goes down on the side of the house is not a wide stairway with lighting or railings and made for the public use. i don't have to do the public use stairway. it is just the right way to do it. and opening up access to the land is a good thing to do. that is what it has been from the beginning it has never changed from the very first presentation six years ago not one time. >> except that it was made smaller. >> i guess that the they mentioned that the stair stairs that have been a public stair all wait through the site we woul

those are wood stairs in a wood

the stairs. is a possibility to construct these stairs to present code. this type of winding stairs, as you can see here, is constructed with limited space. you see this type of stair where you live where you are constricted with space, sometimes on the side of the building. in some cases, we have no choice but to reconstruct the stairs as this. but here, we have the opportunity to construct a safe stair. there is and issue whether the stairs would require replacement or repair. we have moved beyond this issue. we would like to get them to present date code. -- present day code. i felt we could do this without much resistance. we see the resistance being offered to buy the neighbors to the east and their opposition to their views being obstructed by illegal property line windows. you might be aware of that. i would say that we are not -- sorry -- we are not restricting their view dramatically. we are providing safe access and some of these views -- some of these windows are out farther were you w

it has a porch and stair on it. the variants will preclude replacement of that stair. all the other conditions of approval that were granted the same time for both properties -- president goh: i have a question. the handwritten document you were just reading from -- where does that appear? that was the thing you did not have previously? >> correct. in my request for a rehearing, exhibit b, an agreement for stair and landing, recorded 10/29/99. president goh: and it was recorded on the other property? >> i know. that is why i did not have it. president goh: and it was supposed to be recorded under 1269? >> i would imagine that if applied to both properties it would have correctly been recorded, yes. president goh: thank you. >> mr. gladstone? >> brett gladstone, representing the property owner. just to give you a little background on where we have been in previous hearings, the planning commission had three hearings. we unanimously approved the demolition and the new building. the a historic preservation board voted unanimously and had no problem with the new building.

you would not approve the stair. you would then have to go back. >> you can file for late jurisdiction. you can oppose the decisions that they made untimely issue. >> hell laundered does that take. >> this is something that we can discuss with the project sponsor. we have been working with the project sponsor to get them to the point where we can have the project of the board so that they can make it planning decision. with regards to the stairs, they could apply for new variants. we could look at other issues with the variants. what the differences, these would be within the footprint. this is a smaller debt. this is the difference between what they are proposing and what the planning department has approved. i thought it was clear because the variance had not been issued. the stairs have inspired -- gone into the rear yard. this is a very small and project sponsor. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> i would like to recommend that we move into public comment. if there is anyone here that would like to sp

i don't care i don't like the stairs the massaging it the same as the adjoining stairs it is somewhat ironic my request we amend this permit and amend the drawings to comply with each of rose and margaret wishes the first one the stair design that we actually put in open

obviously if you have stairs over a living space you have to water proof the stairs -- waterproof the stairs but a lot of energy is being spent trying to get exterior stairs waterproof when you could just let the water flow through. some of the stairs you're showing are good examples of those. >> we have another shot in a minute. here's somebody's exterior deck and stairs which they've been -- a couple of rails have been replaced. i want to point out, by the way, that the spacing between the guard rails on this deck or guards, as they're now called, are pretty wide and don't need the mod -- meet the modern codes which they forum maximum space and it's easy to accomplish that before building a giant new stair and deck by using some kinds of fencing, whether it's metal fencing which you can buy at any hardware store or plastic fencing. just put it up and over the years renters and building owners have been held responsible to meet the standards of today's safety, especially for decks and stairs. so for those of you who have rental units, i encourage you to upgrade your stairs and your s