the d.r. are the concerns of the d.r. requester of 718 duncan street, an adjacent rear neighbor to the southwest, that the elevator penthouse constitutes a fourth story addition that is out of scale with the neighborhood context. public comment, to date the department has received no letters in opposition and no letter of support. however, staff received a phone call yesterday from a resident at 1424 diamond, an immediate adjacent neighbor to the south regarding the roof deck that does not appear in the pre-11 and the primary concern was the privacy impact due to the roof deck. the department re-reviewed the project with respect to scale and massing of the context and recommended eliminating the elevator vestibule at the roof, minimize the roof massing and removing solar vents. i apologize. i was hacopies and i emailed th out. let me try to do while reading on. the changes and based on the residential guidelines, staff finds that the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommends that the commission not take

the d.r. requester's rear wall. a code conforming bay window setback two and a half feet from the side lot line protrudes an additional 3 feet from the rear wall. the reason for the d.r., the d.r. requester his of 1877 and 1879 green street, the adjacent neighbors to the west, concerns three primary issues. the first, to existing property line windows would be blocked by the proposed site addition. to, primacy and light impacts on the neighbors rear deck from the rear bay window and three, roof drainage impacted by the new construction. to date, the department has received no letters of support or opposition. a recommendation, in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, that department has reviewed the project with respect to the issues and found that on item number 1, the planning department policy does not typically protect property line windows as they are noncompliant features. by the description of the d.r. applicant, they are not required for light and air to habitable rooms and therefore this is not an exceptio

another thing that the d.r. requester had asked us to do was to give her a view of the roof deck from the top. as we said, we've had it at the rear of the property off the master bedroom. it's a difference of public space. it's a quieterrer use. we were showing there's no views. and while there is a deck that is here, and the deck that looks here that we're also talking about is at a open space and it is true, you can turn back and look at the d.r. requesters' house that most of you will agree that most people will be turning and looking at that. not at the homes behind them. so i did mention a shadow study to talk about the light well and whether it's three or five foot setback would make a difference and that's here if you have questions. is that my time. >> you have 24 seconds. >> and last but not least, it's probably helpful for you to see the design of the house in these 24 seconds. this is the house from the front. can we have the overhead, please. >> there you go. >> this is the house from the front. from the stree

the reason for the 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

the reason for the d.r. requester, a tenant of 436 20th avenue is concerned with three primary issues cht first, displacement and economic hardship during the construction. and an increase in rental cost due to pass through of building equipment and further impacts to parking with respect to muni services and general congestion due to addition of additional parking space in the ground floor of the property. the public comment to date we have not received any letters of support nor opposition. and our recommendation in light of the d.r. requesters concern, we contacted the rent board with respect to tenants rights and found because the building is under rent control, entitlements are governed and the state civil code 1947 requiring notice and per diem compensation for temporary displacement and that comes in various tiers depending on duration of displacement. i can elaborate on but i'm no encyclopedia yet. the improvement is determined by rent board hearings upon petition of the building owner. the rent board doesn't

the d.r. requester has requested these continuances -- it was our hope in agreeing to the continuances we could meet with the d.r. requester and have him talk with us about his concerns in an attempt to come to some sort of compromise. we have offered numerous times to meet with his engineers, attorney, architect, but he has refused. he will not even have a conversation. this project was being considered for a hearing in february of this year. but the 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 reso

the 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

department's position is in light of the d.r. request concerns they have reviewed the project with the residential design guides. they found, one, the garages were determined by both staff and historic preservation. either the building or the district. the proposed alterations were found consistent with the article 10 and the standards. the nexus between under mining rent control was not made year by the 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

the record. this time staff recommended not to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you, 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 claimin

the 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.

the project sponsor and the 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

the commission requested additional information and they heard again on january 11th and unanimously voted not to take discretionary view. it's noted, during the additional design review process that happens when a d.r. is filed, staff, the team looks at the 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

the proposal. in that, a 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