22 and others. How much concrete would we need to pour . Im not an engineer but my friends came back and said, well , based on the foundation alone, you would need 1308 cubic yards. The reports that you handed in only have 150. D. B. I. Handed in 150. That doesnt include any of the walls. Im wondering, where is the rest of the special report . The engineer has the report. Wouldnt they be handed in by d. B. I. . Im not sure why they are not there was geotechnical observations during the excavation and per the permits we pulled, that was reviewed by d. B. I. Thank you. I appreciate it. I look at this and i go, you know, this was supposed to answer all the questions i had last go around and it didnt. It actually raises more questions. You know, you look at the sidewall and you look at the back walls, you are about 100 cubic feet short on the tests. The fire issues and im just like, well, im overwhelmed. I would love to see a summary on everything not just handing all the reports and raw data. This doesnt make any sense. It doesnt. I like where it is going, im just not prepared to prove this today because it is not enough we are not there yet. Commissioner fong . Question for staff. The bigger issue from that last discussion here at the commission was changing a two unit building to three units, admittedly it didnt quite happen in terms of replication of the original flats. Staff has not given the recommendation, but in staffs opinion, there is a creation of three viable units that occurred here. That is correct. The creation of three units that are presented before you that meet planning code. We are not charged with enforcing all of the Building Code, but, yes, we have a code compliant three unit building with seeking a variance for some features. Right. In terms of two points for variance. Correct. There is an expansion within the front setback and the rear yard. Okay. Commissioner hillis . Can you talk can you shed any insight into the exiting . I cant because im not charged with that and i would be speaking if i said something and it was taken as testimony, i am not authorized. But what is before us now that complies with the planning code . We need a variance. Yes. What is before you now, the original proposal provided a variance. They have done significant work into the rear. That is all being maintained in the proposal that you have in front of you tonight, with an addition of the stairway and the rear to allow the upper unit to be split. The most upper unit needs access to the rear yard and open space otherwise it would trigger a new variance for the open space, so there is an addition to the rear yard variance requirement, but the work in the rear does require a variance. But otherwise all three units meet exposure requirements is adequate open spaces. All right. Even with the first plan we had this year, i think commissioner milgaard talked about, can we convert this to three units, and theres a lot of humming and hauling about whether that was feasible to do, or financially feasible. We will see if it is financially feasible and this gets to be a three unit building, but i think we should move this along. It is what this commission asked for a while i wasnt here. I agree we should make this a three unit building. Unfortunately, we cant have an a. D. U. Here because it would be a cave, but i think it is a good it is the best outcome we can hope for for an extremely unfortunate situation. If we want to canadian notified from d. B. I. About how this is working its way through their code approval if we want to continue to get notified from d. B. I. About how this is working its way through their code approval process, i think we did move this nightmare forward and get housing and approve three units here in the process take its course. Before you have spoken already. Before i agree with you that we need a solution and a path forward. I think my issue here is that this project sponsor went through our process and then broke it broke out of the process. It went on to the d. B. I. Process and also broke out of that process. By approving a project that is consistent with what we have talked about, but we know is not consistent with building and fire codes, we are then trusting that d. B. I. Is going to do what they are supposed to do in the projects that they have already failed to do what they are supposed to do. It gives me pause, you know, that we are saying we will just trust our system, which we know had failed us egregiously in those instances and we are trusting it to, you know, have a path forward. I just want to sit with this for a minute. Commissioner moore . Would you mind, in layman his terms, very simply explaining to the commission wide, from your perspective, and as a lice licensed and Structural Engineer , you could build this building and design this building within the purview of your license . Could you please explain of how you as an engineer, interpret how the building fails to meet the fire code. At this point, it would be considered under Building Code a new structure. It would not she would not be able to argue any of these units are grandfathered in as nonconformity. That was never legal. On a very similar case, when youre putting someone back or reconfiguring it, the building point of view would be these are three new units, and you have to comply with the Building Code to construct a three units building and that would require sprinkling, exiting, the fire department, in particular would be very concerned, with the exiting of the second unit and the rescue window. A project that has gotten this far is a little shocking to me. They havent got it all worked out with fire and building in a preapplication, so they are in front of you ones. This is not the first time they are here. They should have had this answer down pat before they showed up. Thank you. As i said earlier, i think the adjustment to the drawings were not made with a thorough review of how this building really becomes a different kind of building. It is for that reason that we and other cases have called on buildings not conforming. Mr. Fong actually did that on one of his earlier reviews with us, that that building was not conforming to the fire code when you have three units in need. You need to make special exiting requirements. I would like to toss you one more time the question as to whether or not you consider the lower unit being compliant with respect to the exposure requirements for the belt it for the bedroom of the lower part of the building. Sure. The planning code does not have any exposure requirements for bedrooms. It has exposure requirements for the unit itself. There are minimum requirements for sleeping room and housing code and there are various issues there that we need to address as to whether or not that proposed bedroom meets those requirements. On top of that, my understanding is the building is fully sprinklered on that perspective. I dont think that is an issue, but obviously we could have the project sponsor speak to the exiting issue grade of the issues that have been raised to see if that has been considered by them and if they think it meets that are wet thought they put towards that issue, but my understanding is the building is fully compliant. Thank you. Commissioner richards . I agree with commissioner milgaard. This is so many things that have come before us. Today was particularly painful for me. I dont want to have this approved until i know that it is buildable. I dont want to rely on d. B. I. , im sorry, i have lost faith in them. Mr. Best noia, you please come up . You were doing this in the back as i was rattling off my numbers for the cubic yards, what did you come up with . North of 100 yards minimum. Once you get into the foundation ties, it is pretty straightforward. How many yards do they say they poured . 150. It is a three figure number. Okay. My friends who are the engineers said five walls would have been about 50 and back walls would have been 60. It depends on how tall the back wall is and how you tear it up. If this comes back, i want to make sure we see the geotech report, and i want to understand if it wouldnt require a cat ask and a more intensive look, what does that mean . Should we have done a cat ask intensive look . Where is our obligation, given all of this stuff . This has more hair on it then a furby. Staff may address what we did exactly, but we had this issue when ceqa can only analyse what the existing conditions are. If work is done without permit, there is a challenge there under ceqa. That doesnt sit well with me you say, that is existing condition, when truly, it was with 800 units are no longer there. That boggles my mind. That is common sense. Im sorry, im cranky, its late , this makes no sense to me. Commissioner fong . It has happened twice now when i brought forward what was basically a building condition, excuse me, a Building Code issue , and i was reminded that, you know, this is a planning code issue, and Building Code issues are going to go through their own course and their own views as to what will be required. In my mind, what is before us is basically three levels of residence in three separate units. One in the basement, one at the ground floor, and one in the second and third floors. Should one want to have all that additional information, im not sure what that does to our decision as to whether these three units, on the a on a landuse basis, conforms to what this commission asked them to do im not prepared to let this drag on unless, of course, i only have one vote. [laughter] the fact is, im ready to act on it tonight. Director ram, did you want to Say Something . If i may on the comment about d. B. I. And their role here, no matter what happens with this project, d. B. I. Will have to review the drawings. I would just offer that i understand theres frustration about the process, but no matter what you approve or dont approve or whatever happens with this site, d. B. I. Will have to approve the drawings and approve the permit. We have to rely on that system to a certain extent to move forward with any project. Commissioner moore . Were falling into a grey zone where our responsibility to make the right lane use and Planning Decisions have an overlap with codes that we are not really obligated to adhere to, but where we were well know that a building could be significantly altered and should not achieve the lane use objectives and other objectives we have is Planning Commissioners. That is the reason why we have taken careful pause on other projects where we came into that grey zone. I believe that commissioner richards, inc. Losing present melgars questions, full well knowing this project could go a very different way saying, lets cancel those questions and have a building that meets at least the interpretation of those minimum requirements such as exposure for the lower unit, as well as the fire exiting, and if we know that even in a proverbial way, we have the ability to support a building because we are sitting here trying to make it work, but i do not want to be pulled over the barrel and ultimately having to hear the higher ups in d. B. I. Telling us what they should have been telling us all along. They have not offered any help and have basically put it to us to resolve issues that are significantly frustrating for all of us. We are just sitting here trying to do the right thing without having the support of the right tools. Nobody from d. B. I. Is here and i am just seeing we have the right to know the proper answers to the questions we are asking. Commissioner richards. I moved to continue. Second. With the buildable building brought back to us with the geotech report, with the summary of everything, we understand this building is fully baked. I understand theres also a hitch a whole issue with removing dirt on a now existing condition. I really would like to have you please give that to us, mr. Zoning administrator. Commissioner hillis . I think it is better to move this project along and ask director ram. If we think there is something, you know, wrong with the process , which i think we have sought today that theres something wrong with the process , lets use this case and asked people in the audience and director ram, in the City Attorney to use this as an investigative an investigation of what went wrong , you know, who made errors in judgement, but i think asking d. B. I. To come back here and tell us this is fine from a fire standpoint, but we dont think d. B. I. Is going to give us the straight answer, then do want to hire someone else to do that . If they come back and say, this is compliant, or would be compliant if you made these changes, which arent necessarily relevant to this planning approval, you are good to go, are we comfortable with that . Or can we not then trust d. B. I. And say, well, we would like someone else to review that and tell us it is okay. We are not experts on the planning code. Thats why i think lets move this. If we want to use this case with others to appropriately allocate time of the department and the City Attorney to look into this case, im fine with that. Lets also try to get what we have asked for, which is the maximum number of Housing Units here, which is three. I have questions whether this actually will get built, given what we know what this project looks like today. It is going to take a lot to go through that process and rebuild that. People will have to apply for permits to do it. This is just the first step. We want to investigate and fix our process with d. B. I. And we can also do that. I think i dont want to continue this. I think that what will happen here is that we will title this for three units, which is what we want, and i think the project sponsor will try to sell this, you know, i think that is what will happen. I think that given the press that this project has got in and the conversation that we have had here and the relationship with d. B. I. , and everything that has happened, i dont thank you youre likely to get the money that you were hoping you are going to get selling it as a singlefamily house. I do think for that, this has worked. I also dont know that this project is buildable as you have presented it. I am not asking you. I dont think it is buildable, but i do think that whoever, you know, buys this is going to have to go through this process. The thing about going and doing the geotechnical is still a question. I dont think that a new owner will have to go through that because, as you say, this has already been, if this is already the existing condition, im not sure that we can require at this point. So that is kind of moot. I think the process of going through fire, going through the Building Code to get a permit to make this happen, the owner will have to do it anyway, so i am still on the fence about this, but i dont want this to drug on commissioner fung . There is an option to condition our action and say this is the basic premise what were proving. You have the unit any, if that changes, it will have to come back if the conditions are not meant. That would be only if somebody complained. No, it could be that they make a change. It is still going to be reviewed by planning when they go through their full permit. This is one of the points i was going to bring up. When you consider a discretionary review, you can take d. R. And approve the project exactly as proposed with no extra conditions. If it moved forward and for some reason it could not be approved as proposed because of some Building Code or fire code requirement that was required to be a major reconfiguration or some change in the stairs, if it is anything more than just minor stuff, it has to come back to you guys anyway. You approved one thing, and now it is something else. It would have to come back to you in that case. The other option is to approve it as is with some marginal conditions to allow for a certain amount of change within certain parameters, if you wanted to two allowed to move forward. There maybe there right to be other moving around, but you still want to keep the three units, the same configuration, all that stuff. You have options there, but the point is, if you approve as is today and it needs to change significantly, it would have to come back to the planning code anyway through another d. R. Process for you to approve a new condition. Okay. Commissioner richards . One second. I have a thought and it just left me. Im sorry, it has been a long day. I will pick up on what commissioner hillis said. I think the City Attorney should do an investigation. Regardless of what we do. I think that is a really good idea and i commend you for that. I think we have a lot of questions up here, we dont know what the hell happened, and theres all these warrants down to nowhere. I would like to see the City Attorney get involved and understand the principles of the project. I would like to have a vote on the continuance. The only reason is, lets vote on the continuance. The egress and all that stuff actually put stuff back into the rear yard and we are back with, you know, we are taking d. R. , we are now administering it as the v. A. Would be administering it. I want to understand what i am administering. I would like to get a fully big project here and we can actually say, you are this much into the rear yard, this is what it looks like, this is a good project. Lets take a look and do a continuance, if not, lets discuss something else. I respectfully request we take a look. How long would you like to continue this to . Four weeks. I strongly recommend we do not continue this. That would be subtended 26th, october, is already full, october 10th is full, october 17th, if youre going to continue this, go to october 24 th. On that motion to continue this matter to october 24th im sorry, i want to clarification from the motion maker. So continue it. October 24th, what do you want to see coming back . The geotechnical report, the fire everything that will make it a fully big project. Fire rated walls need to be here and here, everything that would actually affect the building so we dont have a situation where mr. Teague says, oh, we have to come back because theres a change in his tolerance. Lets just deal with it here and approve the project next time. Okay. This could be done on a significantly simpler set of drawings because all we have been seeing, the drawings are very cluttered, they very hard to read. It could be a very simple set of diagrams explaining how this all works. At the moment there are cabinets and furniture which dont even belong to the room. This set needs to be cleaned up and answer the questions we have been asking. There is a motion that has been seconded. Would you like me to call the question . On that motion to continue this matter. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes 42. October 24th. We will close public hearing on the variance and continue to october 24th. That will place us on item 19 , 869 alvarado street. Discretionary review. That evening, commissioners. David winslow, steph architect. Im trying to speak as loud as possible. Planning staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated discretionary request for discretionary review for a Building Permit application to construct a onestory attached garage in the existing side driveway at the east Property Line of an existing threestory, onefamily one family residents at 869 alvarado. The d. R. Requester is here it is not compatible with neighborhood character and blocks existing Property Line windows resulting in the reduction of light and ventilation and as well as emergency egress, and creates some increased risk of fire and damage from possible earthquakes their proposed alternative is to construct a gated and alternative to a garage and enclosed garage structure. To date, the department has received four letters in opposition and no letters of support for the project. The departments Residential Design Advisory Team rereviewed this and confirmed this edition does not present an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance with respect to the issues raised by the d. R. Requester his , specifically that the single the new sigel story garage structure is designed in a compatible manner with the existing Historic Resource and the new structure is set back at least 20 feet from the front building facade cited in an existing driveway which reduces its visibility from the street, and second, the garage is clad in wood siding and has a flat roof that is visually separated from the existing bay window projection. The proposed blockage or diminishment of light to the existing windows are not exceptional. We know they are not protected. Staff recommends the commission do not take d. R. And approve this code compliant project. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the d. R. Requester. Good evening, commissioners. This is my husband, richard. I commend your level of attention and sustained energy along this incredibly long process. We actually thought we had a 1 00 p. M. Appointment, and apparently it is not an appointment. [laughter]. Thank you. We have been hearing a lot about additional Housing Units to house people in todays cases. This is about a new unit to house a car. This new structure will be built on a long existing driveway and would not provide additional parking. We are the requesters. We dont have representatives and we are the people most directly affected by the proposed structure. We are not the only ones affected. We live on a closeknit and friendly block. Many of our neighbors oppose this project. Eight of them wrote in represented by these four letters that were received. Since they are not here, i will briefly refer to some of their comments. Building this is written by Matt Schwartz who is involved in the Development Planning for the last 29 years as a Senior Development specialist for the San Francisco redevelopment agency. He says building a new building is contrary to all of the citys goals and policies as it is contrary to the existing fabric of our neighborhood. At a time when San Francisco is promoting new developments without any covered parking, it is crazy to even consider approving a new structure just republic covered parking on a block with easy access to three bus lines. Many of our neighbors wrote other letters pointing to how incredibly disruptive existing project has been in support of the fact that the building that would just provide covered parking. But clearly this is still in denial of accessibility of my neighbors whose just to give you a sense of what were talking about here. We have lived so many years in this house. We live here without two children and a constant stream of family members that need housing for a few weeks. The most compelling feature of our house is the windows and stationary side. In completing our upgrades, we placed ourselves in the shoes of our neighbors making efforts to ensure the quality of life was not negatively impacted. This is our house and our other neighbors house. Instead of a garage window, we closely monitor the progress and minimize neighborhoods along the way. Plants did not include blocking neighbor windows. [indiscernible] i am at a loss to understand how this has been able to go on like a runaway train for 18 months. They put a huge hole in the sidewalk and this is a bridge, apparently. Those are the windows. This is the first day of the building on the construction of that demolition and it rained, wide open windows, there was also cemetery as it rained on our house. God knows what. They are rebuilding. Our daughter will be most directly affected by this project. This project will block muchneeded light into her dark bedroom. This light is coming from a historical window that has been there possibly for 121 years, certainly much before we got there. My husband will now speak on the additional impact of this project, which are vast. Our neighbors and i believe the effect on this neighborhood is exceptional and is extraordinary we are grateful for a chance to communicate our sentiment and repress you take the d. R. So we can discuss more reasonable options and fastforward. Thank you. Thank you for having us here this evening. This has been quite an interesting day. There is lots of change. Thank you are you part of the d. R. . You are. Your five minutes are up. Thank you. You will have a chance to rebuttal later on. Do we have anyone from the public in support of the d. R. Requester . Anyone in support of the d. R. Requester . Seeing none, project sponsor . Hi, i am the project designer i just want to reiterate what David Winslow had mentioned that what is proposed for the structure is one story. It is set back 43 feet from the front Property Line and it is 284 square feet. It is fairly minimal. Because this is in the buildable area of the property, a could have potentially been much larger and we are using materials that are consistent with the neighborhood and preserving the historic elements that are on the facade. I would like to quickly address the neighbors concern regarding fire safety and the Property Line windows. I know that is somewhat of a d. B. I. Issue, but it seems to be a major factor in that complaint when i had a look at google satellite images from 2008 to 2017, i could see there were changes in the Property Line windows and most of them occurred when they did a renovation in 2012. I will show you a picture. The windows that i had marked in the photo had either been altered, which would no longer make them grandfather a bowl, or had been added, and i did check the microphone and they were not approved on their permits. With regards to that the point is had they been properly permitted, they would have been made to file something, which is a Property Line window agreement , which would clearly stay and be recorded with the city that if the adjacent property were to develop that they would work they would be required to remove those windows so as far as part of the complaint is that also if the garage is approved, they would then have to fire rate all the windows on that side of the building. I believe that that should have been their responsibility when they did the remodel. In addition, they stated that they were concerned about earthquake safety, and again, that is a onestory wood frame building that will be bolted to the foundations. I just dont see any concern whatsoever on how that would be a problem in an earthquake. Thank you. As the property owner, do i speak now . Yes. We own the property with our five and 7yearold children. Our family looked for a long time for Single Family home with a backyard for little kids to play in. We wanted the security and buffer to the street from the yard. We purchased an unlivable, distressed property that has been in and out of foreclosure for ten years and spent the last 18 months restoring it to that beautiful victorian property it originally ones. Having a garage will not impact the look of it, especially with it being set back so far from the street. We Research Research before purchase that the site area was buildable and we play paid for the extrawide lot with the expectation we could build a garage. We have scaled back our allowable precode plans to address neighbor concerns with no compromise. Our garage will need to be built around that and made to be much smaller. Were not asking for any exceptions or special consideration. We have compromised on our original plan and carefully follow planning code. We really just want a garage for our family. Is there any members of the public that would like to speak on behalf of the project sponsor okay. Seeing none, d. R. Requester his, you have a two minute rebuttal. Thank you. I think what im hearing here, and some of the information that was presented by our neighbors is factually untrue. I have drawings but do show the windows that were approved that we have there. The window that i am most concerned of, quite frankly with this project, and we havent even seen different variations of this, is what happens here with my daughters bedroom. That is what i am most concerned about. Their first project, if you can imagine a spoiled kind of situation where someone says okay, i am going to have this garage and this neighborhood, which would, by the way, be the only garage that would be side attached in our neighborhood, okay, except for multiunit properties, but i digress he wants to create a carport for his 140,000 car, which he said to us the first time we had met. His baby. Okay . This is a lifestyle change for me, okay . It is a lifestyle change. Theres no consideration given for the fact that that wall, whatever it will be, and the fact that my farm house was built in 1898, and it overshoots the Property Line, i bought the house in 2007. It is just frustrating for me. What i want to propose is take the d. R. And lit us look at alternatives that where work were work because i think we will find something. It may look good on a plan, but it does not fit the neighborhood thank you. Project sponsor, you now have a two minute rebuttal, also. In reference to their daughters bedroom window, i would like to add that i checked the microfilm and the planned that actually approved that bedroom included a second window , which they didnt include in their photo. The second window faces the rear yard. It is a sizable window on the plan that was noted by 40 by 40, and was specifically it was specifically noted as the egress window. Thank you. They referenced that there is no other singlefamily home in the neighborhood with a side garage, that is because i looked for a mile radius around our house, theres only two lots with that width in a mile radius around us. That is kind of not a valid point because it is not even physically possible. Project sponsor, Public Comment is now closed. Commissioners . Commissioner fung . Question for the architect for the permit holder. Can you go back to the photo around the driveway which shows the windows of your neighbors house . Sure. At the window they are concerned about is which one . That one . This window was also mentioned in their complaint, which is a bathroom window. How about the window in front of the daughters window . That will not directly affect them. This window is there kitchen window. Our original proposal did affect that window, but we subsequently lowered the height of the garage and our new height will go up to the sale of that window so as not to impact it. What if you moved your garage , slid it forward . We intentionally did not move it forward because you can see there is a historic bay window on the side and to comply with Historic Preservation requirements, and also not to affect any of the historic elements, we chose to start the garage past the bay window on the side, and we cant move the garage back any further because we are right at the required rear yard line. Mr. Winslow, is that a preservation issue . Yes. It is . Yes. You cant put it it was used by preservation staff and that was their recommendation to located there such that it does not interfere with visibility of the bay window. Any other comments . Commissioner richards . Question for the d. R. Requester. You said we give it a little bit more time and you can come up with something that would work. What did you have in mind . Whats most important to me, given the situation that we have today is that that window, my daughters room is not blocked. I would be very supportive of the opposing team to look at options to move it back as far as to the back of their yard. They could do that. I would be supportive of a variance to do what it takes to move it back. There is history, if you look at photographs in the past, there was a structure that i had in my backyard which i had to take down because it was bad, but it was a carriage house, you know, and im just like, why dont you just move the thing back . Thank you. I guess, project sponsor . It looks like you have a significant backyard, Square Footage wise. It is a decent sized yard. Would you be open to having the car turned the corner and have the garage right off the back . It was my understanding we would not be able to do that in the required rear yard. Mr. Winslow point of clarification. Parking is not allowed in the rear yard. Access to parking can go through a rear yard. So right now it is not in the rear yard . The proposed project is not in the rear yard. Because it is on the driveway correct. Commissioner hillis . Can you put that picture back up of the slide . Is that the Property Line that has the x. On them . This projection is 8 inches beyond the Property Line. So these windows are approximately 12 to 15 inches from the Property Line, but they are still considered Property Line windows because they are less than 3 feet. Got it. So that projection is still on the neighbors property, there is no encroachment or easement for that projection to come onto your side of the property . This projection . Yeah. That is on my clients property, partially. Okay. And there is an easement or no . We had a site survey done i suspected it was over the Property Line, and we had an official site survey done that did confirm that. Okay. Can you pull up can you put that on the overhead . I dont have that. Thank you. Just pull that up a little bit so we can see the bottom. Can you pull it towards, perfect so youve got a space between, you know, theres the end of the driveway before you hit the back yard, i know the 45 backyard line, is at the end of your garage . Right. So you are or building also encroaches into the rear yard. Yes. The actual house is nonconforming. Got it. If you move that garage so the back of the garage was flush with the back of the house, would you uncover that window . Does it give you enough space to uncover the window . We had originally proposed that the garage go to the back of the house, and we were told by planning that that was not allowed because we would then, just because the house is there, doesnt mean the garage can be there because the house is not compliant. You said it wasnt allowed and you can ask for variance . I dont remember, im sorry. That scenario sounds like youve got the right to build a garage where you have proposed it, but i think, avon the condition that it is a bedroom window, it someone somewhat rises it to a level of extraordinary. There could be a window we dont have the floor plan from the neighbors house, but there is a window in the back, and it may not be extraordinary. The plans show another window so do you have another window there in the bedroom . Do you have the floor plan of your ground floor . Okay. Got it. I just think that is the solution. To pull it back, get a variance, you are already encroaching on that rear yard. You kind of wanted it there. I know it is a little bit more of a process, but to me, that is kind of the answer. Commissioner richards . Under the city charter, can we take this away and reprove the project with the variance . Lets continue the project with commissioner hillis and the project sponsor original request i think that is a really good solution. Lets do that. I moved to do that. Commissioner hillis . With the neighbors be supportive of the variance . Okay. Is there a second . Second. You have to come back on consent. It is a variance hearing. I would say if the variance doesnt get approved you should come back and get a permit to put it where it is. Okay. Commissioner fun . The variance would only be required if the rear wall of this garage extends into the required rear yard. It does. So if you match it up to the back of the house, yes, it extends over. You could move it forward until you hit the rear yard requirement. But the line is right at the back of the garage right now. If you look on this, you cant move the garage. You cant move it towards the back without triggering a variance. It is already there. Okay. Okay. I would request that it makes more sense to put the garage towards the front where the neighbors building is set back. They believed it should be set back. The roof of the garage is like four or 5 feet below the bottom of the bay. [laughter]. Again, im only speaking on behalf of preservation and their review of this. But that was their determination that it be free and clear of the bay and set back as far as possible to retain the historic her to a six of much as possible okay. Did you make a motion. I did. The motion is to take d. R. And send the project back with the garage talked behind the garage that requires a variance which is agreed upon by both parties which is what she originally wanted. Im sorry, to be clear, it is not talked behind the house. He wanted you wanted just back so that it is flush with the back of the house. Right. Second. Okay. That is different from the original motion. Can i clarify, we are taking d. R. And approving the project with a garage to the back, contingent on the Zoning Administrator approving a variance. That is correct. Then you dont have to come back here. Mr. Winslow is making faces. I dont think i dont thank you have the power to approve a project that doesnt have an approve ability with certainty. Ever quires a variance from the d. A. And the indication is that they were given that that would not likely be granted. Commissioner richards . Then we are stuck. Then i moved to continue the project. We are back where we are or we can continue the project and then come back here. I would like to just try to get i dont see what the big issue is. I dont thank you can approve something that is not approvable i moved to approve until the close of the d. A. Hearing. Can we take and intend to improve. Commissioner hillis . If we approve it and the d. A. Says no, you have to start with a permit that starts that process in motion. It sends a message to the d. A. That we are okay with it. Forgive me, but i have to agree with mr. Winslow here. If you take d. R. And approve the application then you are almost preempting them to approve it. You cant approve it because it is not code compliant. Requires another process to occur before you can approve the Building Permit application. I wish we could do that, but ill have to agree that taking a motion intent does not do anything. Lets continue its. Can we continue it until next week . They would need to submit an application for variance, they would have to drop plans, it is not next week. At a minimum, it is a month away there is a 20 day notice requirement. Okay. November . I dont have to i dont think we have to push them out that far but i would suggest maybe october 24th might be the soonest we could take it. Okay, november 7th. Police speak into the microphone. We cant hear you. Im out of the country from october 15th through to november eighth, i believe. November 14th, then. The hope is it doesnt come back to us. The d. A. Approves the variance, you drop your d. R. , and it never comes back to us. I guess i am confused about what you are directing. If we apply for a variance, are you saying that it is automatically approved . No. The Zoning Administrator would have to improve it. We think it is a good solution. They have discretion and they could say no. What will happen is we will get a read from the Zoning Administrator whether we feel it is approvable given that the Planning Commission has recommended this solution. The Zoning Administrator may give you an early read on how he will rule so you are not wasting your time and money. If the variance doesnt pan out. You will have to come back here. Okay. On the motion to continue this matter to november 14th. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. They will place us on item 21 discretionary review. Good evening. This is going to be a little bit longer than the typical presentation. David winslow, steph architect. The item before you is a public initiated requests for discretionary request for discretionary review for Building Permit location for the Building Permit application to construct a 20 story vertical addition, a rear horizontal addition and facade alterations to a existing two story one family residence