Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 25, 2015 5:30am-6:01am PST

5:30 am
set backably the the master bedroom you have 6'6" of bed and have 2 2 foot bedside tables i'm getting 2 feet left over so i don't have- there's not 0 whole a lot of room we did try to make reductions and being straightforward with the master bedroom and kids' room. >> there's a possibly you have an edition a horizontal and vertical edition of the top two floors only; is that correct. >> we're at the 45 percent line we have not asked for a reduction rear yard. >> there's a reduction. >> no two foot 2 stories high
5:31 am
or a 4 story in order to get the program to work. >> that is - you'd have to come out another 3 feet but not off the master bedroom you'll be going out on the deck to the first floors. >> yeah. and again making the impact on some maybe lessen some. >> and make american people impact on the neighbor next door. >> we've been trying to balance this problem by being in sync as far as the massing. >> i don't understand the problem i don't side an opportunity unless you shave the
5:32 am
bathroom. >> there's a main deck off the roof-deck and looking at many of the projects i know it was 427 on one street that will solve the penthouse i'll support asking for the roof deck to be removed. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean he support unless you can help us with a solution on the staircase there is a cell phone tower and the roofs that had structure i mean clearly i think people across the street the issue was a view issue the space that get so much utilized. >> there's a precedent for roof
5:33 am
deck on the street there are houses some of which at the residents of the dr supporters that have roof deck we're innovating not trying to claim something. >> we're really to to minimize the impact the he knows of the roof deck and the railing or more importantly trying to get - >> just to be clear the railing is transparent it's opposite there's an inhabitable roof deck. >> so to the stair. >> to the stair i mean - i have - if it's a habitable roof i have to be able to get people in and out safely and that's the building code. >> i don't know if i can fought
5:34 am
a way of a hatch i can i'm going to have to raise that wall and can the studies we've shown it is going to make a greater impact on that skylight first of all, which is the only instance where light has been effected the neighbors to the north they're not impacted by the roof enclosure. >> okay thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree with some of the commissioners i don't like the stair penthouse in this case you've got something that is well below the height and essentially the same height alters the existing building the neighbor to their west i believe
5:35 am
and you know, i just don't see an alternative other than removing the deck entirely i'll make a motion to not take dr and approve the project. >> do i hear a second. >> commissioner richards. >> i'm supportive of removing the roof deck and that in support of commissioner antoninis. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to architects to consider if you're not having stairs up to your penthouse you'll be arriving at the north side with the stair opening but you'll have a stair to step into
5:36 am
to come into the roof facing the option direction and the stairs will be a 14r57bd form that opens in the center of the roof would you then be able to get a hatch based on the description what we can do we have done that on quite a few of the projects and have shares that dbi because of the cluster of space has hatches. >> if i'm understanding correctly right now we have a wrap around stair rather than wrap up that around continue the leg to the northeast so on the third floor we have an 8 foot floor plate we have let's see. >> we have over 4 feet of rice
5:37 am
we have to make i'm going to basically cut off my hallway. >> can you relocate a stair i don't have is paper i don't know what those are can you find a way ramp the stair in the northern direction e.r. bending it in a double way to the east to get up to the roof that supports the project. >> i believe i don't have the headroom. >> could you make the headroom. >> it will mean a whole redesign the floor in terms of the not getting access to the hall to the bedroom. >> i was kind of waiting for
5:38 am
you to say i'll try. >> i will do my best. >> (laughter). >> it sodiums the issue is not the deck such as the access to the deck it will be in our power to say you'll take dr and approve the project with no staircase and if it's possible to use a hatch to proceed in that direction in not there will be no opposition. >> thank you. >> (laughter). >> i'll second. >> commissioner richards. >> and do need a formal motion. >> motion made. >> we have a motion and a second unless the maker and the
5:39 am
person of the motion. >> i mean, i'll propose especially an amendment and the amendment has to be redesigned in a way to have a hatch beyond the scope i'm going to go let's see what everyone else says. >> call the question. >> what is it okay with the seconder. >> not maker of the change was not. >> okay. so on the motion to not take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis no commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore no and commissioner richards no and commissioner president wu that motions fails two to four with commissioner hillis commissioner richards and commissioner president wu voting against. >> commissioner richards i make a motion to take dr and approve the project with a roof hatch if
5:40 am
not possible not a roof-deck. >> second. >> so there's a is there a motion and a second requiring a roof hatch for the roof-deck if not possible eliminating 9 roof deck on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 12 for case d at 435 tenth avenue this is a discretionary review. >> this is an item for a request for continuous that's
5:41 am
not supported by the that project sponsor. >> let's take the issue of whether or not to continue. >> i ask we continue this until networks week. >> there are no other items and february 5th is extremely full you have 1, 2, 3, 4 essentially 5 but one is 4 drs and, however, the week after. >> february 12th is on. >> i'll make a motion to continue this to february 12th. >> first on the issue of whether or not to continue is there any public comment? >> hello, i'm david on behalf of the pardon we're the ones that requested the continuance. >> the dr requester. >> yes. >> and i just want to point
5:42 am
out that one of the things that was pointed out in the last week, a project sponsor architect can't be here today and we're hopeful that the same kind of analysis was given to the new project and will be no assistance to occur so besides that we have requested it because we do not have everyone in our family and team available to be here the project sponsor tracey's is here only with the permission of her employer but if we have to go forward we will but i prefer to continue it. >> is there any additional public comment on this question of the continuance?
5:43 am
>> face up on the projector. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is in this case i'm the applicant on 435, tenth avenue although we want to proceed we've been in close condominium conversion with the last rvtv channel 3 including a meeting to discuss the project i think we can clearly describe it's merits and we had a meeting with the gentleman by phenomenon and i'd like for not being here
5:44 am
in the last 365 it's been 2 hundred and 65 days we've having had four final designs that are supported by itself city the decisions were made in our favor by the san francisco planning department there's been appealed on multiple occasions the san francisco planning department has had to put it the hardships westbound self-inflicted and no extraordinary conditions existed the planning staff suggested the sunshine ordinance and we had a renotification due to a typo when was time to schedule did did hearings the last hearing was studying bit the dr requester even though they
5:45 am
choose today the dr requester appealed that this is a considerable impact and it is important this is a brief i cannot discretionary review the dr requester was notified of today's meeting and had ample time to be here. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> christopher i live across the street and am in support of dr the most important thing this was originally called december 4th and the gentleman property it he inflicted the hardship and second this date was inconvention i'm a lawyer in a large firm it's important we
5:46 am
requested a few minutes or continuance in good faith mr. morgan couldn't be here i was scheduled to be on a business trip to new york state cancelling a deposition so a continuance is the first request he's had his own request for continuance and the architect should be here the project needs to be modified thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon madam chair i live on and on in the eery think this is the first time i've come to my meeting a proponent is asking for a continuance the project sponsors architect is not there i understand if their architect was not there or someone was not able to tell their story i appreciate their concern for the
5:47 am
project sponsors but this is as the gentleman said just a tactic for a delay i'm not an attorney like the gentleman spoke i'm a neighbor who lives here i know we're working in good faith please hear this today there's enough resources to tell the story outline and a they want to do a telephone tare story. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners thanks for the moment i'm a neighbor in the sf richmond district and want this meeting to have it took place this evening. >> is there any additional public comment are you the dr requester. >> my husband is out of town as
5:48 am
stated and this is going to be difficult if you ask me to make concessions without him so this is really a hardship thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm going to speak against a continuance only from reading the materials first of all staff is supportive of project and has commented under our pending dr this project will not be referred to the commission and it seems like it is fairly minor situation, however, payroll some changes were made and now a contentions is project didn't contain the changes i
5:49 am
don't think we have to continue it if the project that staff is supporting was modified again, we have to figure out what that is we can take care of that tonight i don't know what we're going to gain by having the architect of the project sponsor here presuming the project sponsor himself and any people speaking on behalf of knows what the project involved. >> commissioner antonini i wanted to clarify this project was revised from as earliest versus back in september i filed a dr and revised since then by not further revised i'm going you referenced was to - >> i'm reading some of the correspond if the attorney for
5:50 am
the dr requesters i believe and they're talking about certain things that apparently were in there and not quite there there were changes in the beginning but we can figure out that out today or another day. >> commissioner richards we're requested by the dr requester one of the dr requesters to continue this because the dr architect. >> in the other architect. >> the earth for the project sponsor is not here and the dr husbands s husband is not here from the last dr the earth are integral to the discussion that's why i ask for a continuance. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i'm omitted to continuance sometimes the architect is not needed
5:51 am
(laughter). >> so $0.83 it's clear let's move on everybody is sitting here for hours. >> there's a motion i've not heard a second. >> let's hear the matter and dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> i'm sorry excuse me. >> thank you. good evening commissioners david lindsey department staff this is a discretionary review for the project on tenth after the property on the east side of the street between dwraer in the inner responding it is rh2 project consists of a rear edition it included 1, 2, 3 story components the 2 and 3 component measures 24 feet in
5:52 am
width the 12 foot by 12 foot incorporates a roof deck and provides set back as mentioned earlier and earlier version of the current project was simpleminded in early 2014 and subject to neighborhood notification in the spring of last year the original project supported the one story component consisted of a deck manufacturing tenth feet in depth with a 5 foot set back on the south side and an 8 foot set back on the other does the discretionary review was scheduled for september 4, 2014, just prior to the hearing the project sponsor enjoyed the department he wished to modify it in a way to modify the notification and the dr hearing
5:53 am
was thus continued indefinitely to allow the department to concluding conduct the now modification that occurred last year no additional request for anothers discretionary review were submitted and the dr request was maintained the dr requesters is sidney morgan and others located adjacent to the north of the subject property the dr requesters concerns are this the project will effect the air and privacy to their home it was revised following the discretionary review and found the following at the massing the proposed edition respects the massing of the neighboring building for the dr requesters the proposed
5:54 am
height and depth relate to the north and no windows are proposed to the property line wall that is set back one foot it set back to the light and air to the south the project which includes a deck on the roof would not effect the privacy or light and air of the neighboring prospective the proposed rear deck will project 12 foot with 5 foot set back on each side the deck will not present any unusual effect on the defense lawyers property the revised project is not creating any extraordinary exceptional circumstances and the commission not take dr and approve the project as revised >> thank you dr requester your
5:55 am
team has 5 minutes. >> hello, i'm david i'm here on behalf of tenaciously and sid nen new there was a much smaller project and had fewer impacts on ms. that is weston and mr. morgan the department recommend inform discretionary review to occur since that time the project sponsor took the plans that were less than twenty-four hours notice and expanded the project not only in depth into the volume as well as square
5:56 am
footage so and the department still buildings this is there are no xooernd exceptional circumstances we totally disagree first of all that building first of all, some of the changes that occurred we're only asking for a minor modifications to make it centennial preapplication plans showed that there would be no light set back ones the side from the third floor and 12 foot projection we had several meetings and made several compromises those compromises concluded 80 a two foot set back and reducing the set back and relocating the stairway and included minor modifications today they've taken those things
5:57 am
back they don't agree to my any of those we think that's not in good faith and since or since the last scheduled hearing no communication with the adjacent prove or disprove he refuses to meet with us i want to point out this is the larger decks have been capacity the yellow area show where the decks are expand right here a spa and living room for the folks this is the impact of those decks on it is like inviting a party into our suprais that a or living room those decks don't have to be that large we're asking for them to be reduced in size those are exceptional this is the light to the existing dining room i'll
5:58 am
show you where that is at this is the dining room. >> move up on the screen please. i'm sorry this is the dining room window this is the expectation that was set back previously in previous plans we're only asking that be reduced by two feet this is a loss of 17 square feet of liveable space donate it we're asking for a minimum we don't care if they extend into the rear yard we don't want a deck and stairway next to the is that a i'll give the rest of my time to my colleague. >> thank you my name is tracey west my husband and i own the property next door we have three children we moved over 20 years we
5:59 am
purchased our queen victorian and moved in lavish day the first family built the home and the children had to go to the nursing home we've spent several years trying to restore the victorian but we did a lot of structural and major repairs trying to keep the homes history intact and only having windows that are custodian owned as long as we own this home we'll maintain if the recession was full of kids a large dog or two
6:00 am
many celebrations to the sires wedding this was before many of the homes in the neighborhood the homes were built for the light and air consideration not the design that removes the light and the point - >> thank you yourself time is up. >> speakers in opposition to the project. >> christopher and christian short and ali short. >> excuse me, sir, your here representing someone. >> i'm a property owner and have been for 20 years. >> directly across that's my first time point will standing here i live directly across from the project the letters of support


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on