Transcripts For SFGTV2 20130906

Wide by 120 feet deep is flat and located in the middle of the block between lake and california streets. Except for several rm1 zone lots california street at the end of the block, the block is zoned rh2 and is comprised of a mix of modest size singlefamily houses and some two unit and two multifamily buildings. The subject building is in the middle of a group of several singlefamily houses with similar front and side setbacks creating a pattern of spacing and design on the block base. The subject property and the adjacent property to the south each contain garage structures in their rear yards accessible through a shared driveway. Since the commission packets went out last week, the department received two emails and one phone call from neighbors in support of the project. And ill pass copies of the emails for the commissions review. Okay. First dr requestor. Oh, im sorry. The dr requestors are the immediate adjacent Property Owners to the south and north. [speaker not understood] is a resident of 137 17th avenue. The property to the south. And [speaker not understood] is the owner of 129 17th avenue, the property to the north. Ms. Setos concerns include the following. That the project is incompatible with surrounding buildings with respect to depth and negatively affects the midblock open space. That the projects form is incompatible with her building with respect to the shared driveway. That the project negatively affects views of the midblock open space. And that the project would negatively affect the ability to have a garden or landscaping in the rear yard. Mr. Zuckers concerns include the following. That the project sets a precedent for futurer development in terms of building depth, that the project in conjunction with the existing nonconforming garage structure negatively affects light and air and air to his property and that the project will cast shadows on his property. The Residential Design Team reviewed the project following the submittal of the dr request and made the following comments. The rdt found the proposed horizontal addition to be appropriately setback from both side Property Lines to reduce any negative effects to adjacent properties. The massing of the addition to be appropriately stepped down to reduce any negative effects to the midblock open space. The rdt noted that the project does not propose any changes to the shared driveway width. The rdt concluded that the project does not contain nor create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and staff recommends that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay. First dr requestor, you have 5 minutes. Good afternoon. My name is [speaker not understood]. Im here on behalf of myself, my husband david who are the current residents and my mother jane [speaker not understood] the property owner. This apartment has been our familys primary residence the last 30 years. [speaker not understood] have a unique situation. We are undeniably conjoined esthetically, gee ranch li and subsequently in its use. Both houses are detached and have the garages back, meaning they share a narrow driveway between the houses. The access shares a backyard and garages. After communication with the applicants who are unable to come to an Agreement Regarding the two reasons why we filed for discretionary review, first, the scale of the addition is not compatible with the surrounding buildings. All of the houses in the midblock extend approximately the same rear depth. The applicants addition would extend that minimum eight feet past any solid wall structure on the entire midblock. It is not respected to establish midblock to open space. The extension of the building line along with the second story addition would severely [speaker not understood] and enjoyment of open space for neighbors on both sides. The proposed extension would also establish precedence for solid well buildings to be built in the midblock open space. As you can see right here, this is the proposed rear extension line. This is the current rear extension line the furthest in our area which happens to be our building as well. The furthest solid line, and this is the rear extension of the other dr applicant requestors property. The project applicant has expressed that they are building out an already established line which i would understand to be our back stairwell. This should be considered as incomparable as their addition would be a large second story solid structure. The second reason why we are filing for discretionary review is that the form of the addition is not compatible with the adjacent building, our building, particularly in respect to the shared driveway. The proposed addition would create an additional length of approximately eight feet, about 17 an already hard to navigate driveway. This driveway both parties and their house guests use to navigate to the garage. Even at the widest portions of the garages there are marks from damage from entry. I have pictures of that. You can imagine. Adding proposed eight feet of extra obstacles whether it be a drop down stairwell into the basement or curb blocking that would create a hazardous driveway condition entering and exiting the garden. The limited mobility of each car will impact the amount of cars able to be parked in the backyard. Therefore, reducing the number of offstreet Parking Spaces as well because of our unique situation, both Property Owners must build accordingly to resanta fethctiontion and maintain the integrity of use and property value. In closing we recognize the diligence and effort that goes into approving plans. However, there are some nuances that the residential guidelines are not able to catch that are [speaker not understood]. My mother and i are longtime San Francisco residents, native. Both in the real estate business. We know the effort it takes for a project of this scope. And were neighbors, after all. So, we wouldnt have filed for discretionary review for any small reason. The experience were trying to convey is to see it in person. And on july 18, on the recommendation from [speaker not understood] at the planning department, i sent an invitation to all the members of the Planning Commission to come and view it in preparation for this hearing. On july 30th there [speaker not understood] which i understand there are probably a lot of requests for these kind of viewings. Additionally after june 17th the announcement that an abbreviated dr analysis would occur, there has been no response from the project applicants or sponsor to move forward in a collaborative effort. So, we come here in hopes that we can come to terms with some sort of understanding. Our recommendations, our actionable recommendations are two thing. One, set the addition back to a building line that is consistent with the neighboring buildings which is 10 feet 5 inches from the eastern most existing building line. That you can probably see from the [speaker not understood] were counting from the back, not the stairway. And the second one is to set the addition off the maam, your time is up. Eight feet off the proline [speaker not understood]. Thank you. Thank you. ~ second dr requestor. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is michael zucker. My wife and i are the owners of the property immediately to the north of the subject property that were discussing this afternoon. Our family has lived in this house since 2002. We have thoroughly enjoyed the neighborhood. It is a unique part of the city where we have side yards as well as rear yards and we have a continuity of development in this particular midblock area. I wish to address three things this afternoon. I want to talk about the neighborhood, the project, and our goals for today. In this neighborhood theres a clearly defined pattern of at the rear of all of the yards. I brought this aerial photograph which i believe youre all pretty much familiar with. Ive also put a red line across the center of the rear yards, the rear extensions of all the buildings. You can see that theres a clearly defined pattern here. And that there are side yards. We had seven homes that are all in this matter. If you go to the opposite side of the block on 18th its much similar. The only changes to this actually happen to be the houses have garages in the rear of the yards, both [speaker not understood] and the subject property. So, this has a Significant Impact on our air and light as well. In early january there was a preapplication meeting for the neighbors. I was unable to attend and the applicant did send us some plans. I did express my concerns about the air and light. I did express my reservations with regard to this. Those plans are the same plans that you have before you. They have not changed since january of this year. During the 311 review period, we did try to facilitate the discussion with the applicants, and i presented some ideas for setting back the property where they could have their extension. It would have less of an impact. I tried to center the project so that it would be in the center of the property, not based on the wall near or along our Property Line. I have this is a blowup of that center block section that you recently saw. And i have this aerial photograph which shows that same line with the extension of their proposed building so that you can get a sense of what the scale of the addition is and how far it sets back into the rear yard. I also prepared an alternate solution that more centered the project and stepped it back and gave them probably 90 of what they had looked at. It was a suggest that their architect look at. It doesnt seem as though they were willing to look at it. In fact, they had their architect prepare some plans which had never been presented to you, to the best of my knowledge. This was a plan that showed what my suggestion was in sketch form. They came back with a second sketch that was significantly reduced. It went to the extension of the yard. They reduced they changed the rear elevation of the property. And, frankly, this was the last we heard of it. Ive not seen anything more. They were inconclusive sketches. They never developed them any farther. Two weeks ago, mr. Paul, who was representing the applicants, approached me by telephone and asked if we were interested in this proposal. I said we hadnt seen anything more. These were rough sketches. The drawings i produced were more detailed than these were. I was told if we werent going to accept them, then they werent going to do anything more. Our goal here today is to resolve this impasse. With your help, we hope to have our little micro neighborhood, our neighbors all with a friendship. Our goal would be to have the Planning Commission send the project back to staff review so that the project sponsors and the two dr requestors can have a successful resolution of this. Were not very far apart. Its just that theres no reason that the mcdonoughs have had or the project sponsors have had to make any compromises. We acknowledge their right to build. Were just trying to do a project that is more in scale with our neighborhood and our properties. Thank you. Okay. Lets open it to public testimony from opponents of the project. Okay, seeing none, Public Comment or that testimony is closed. The presentation from the project sponsor. Vice president and commissioners, thank you. Good afternoon. Jeremy paul on behalf of the Mcdonough Family. If i can go to the overhead, id like to show you some slides excuse me, not the overhead, the computer. Thank you. This is part of a cluster of fairly uniform facades of arts and crafts home on a lovely block of 17th avenue. There is a shared driveway between these. There is no uniformity that can be described at the rear. Its kind of difficult to make out, but i think this is an important angle to see these houses. And the lower righthand corner of the screen, you see the two garages at the rear. That is the subject property in the center where the pink dot is. With the roof line extending beyond it on both adjacent properties. Like so. The existing section is a sense of what this, what the Mcdonough Family is currently living with. The front living room is about 12 feet wide. Theres little space for more than a sofa in the middle of the room. There is not much Family Living space. The upstairs, the mcdonoughs share a bathroom with their kids. The overriding desire of this family to create a space that would not affect that uniform arts and crafts facade or affect the roof line, but provide some common space on the ground floor for the family and a private bathroom upstairs. The question is does this dr meet the criteria required by the planning code . And i would say it does not, does not meet the standard of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Its a code complying plan thats before you and many homes on the block have deeper profiles despite the claim of one of the dr requestors, but thats not the case. If we go to the overhead photo, please thank you as you can see, this being the project sponsor. You can see several houses go significantly further into this rear yard. The midblock is a very difficult verse midblock and i do not believe that this project reaches the level of an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. Could we please go back to the computer . Okay. We have done a detailed shading study to really understand the effect that this project is going to have. Whats important to understand is that rearmost portion of our proposed building, the light green portion, that is a onestory with a sloped roof to the rear. So, the intention is to have as little impact as possible while providing for the needs of the Mcdonough Family. We are not projecting significantly into the rear yard in a way that is going to affect that midblock. The claim that this somehow is going to affect the turning radius of cars coming down that center driveway, there are vote owes in your packet from the dr requestor shooting down that driveway that show an addition that the dr requestor had built that overhangs into the driveway that narrows the drive way. ~ photos we are not moving towards that, the center line of that driveway at all. So, there is no impact on the turning radius or the parking area or the ability to access or egress from that rear parking space. I really dont understand that argument. The shadows that are being cast currently, this being winter, winter diagram showed at its worst and the extension that were proposing, again, at its worst time of the year when the sun is at its lowest and most towards the south still is an impact on the adjacent property. Theres no question were going to cast some shadow, but its not a significant shadow and were not blocking anything out. We go to the residential Design Guidelines. The broader neighborhood context is clearly what drives the determination here. Youve seen the aerial photos and you see all the material in your packet. We are following this residential design guideline provision specifically. To the dr criteria once again, you see a checklist before you. I want to specifically thank [speaker not understood] burn, the staff planner who prepared this. She did a lot of work with us and worked with us in making sure that we are having as sensitive a project as we could possibly develop. To the residential Design Guidelines again, the design modifications are recommended by the residential Design Guidelines page 26, pretty specific in how we should modify the rear and sculpt the rear addition to meet the residential Design Guidelines. Thats exactly what we have done in working with ms. Burns, notching at the rear, setting the extension, stepping it down towards the rear. Now, this is a picture you have all seen from the residential Design Guidelines illustrating the best way to build a horizontal addition in a rear yard. We all know that this Planning Commission doesnt want to approve projects like this. Were not proposing projects like this. Either the way that it this is saying not to do it or the way its saying to do it. Were going much more modest than what the residential Design Guidelines suggest is possible with this site. You see the shading study details in comparison to the existing condition. Thats the addition i was talking about that the dr requestor had built that extends into the driveway, that is really the only impediment to getting in and out of there. Our extension is entirely in the area where that mud room is and extending to where the plan to grassy area of the rear is. This is the other dr requestor from our backyard. And this is, again, showing the existing shadows being cast for when the sun is furthest to the south. You can see that the existing shadow pattern is not impacted in any significant way by this addition. Were adding mass, no question about it. We need to for this family. But we are not overburdening either property with the effectses of what were proposing. I think ill leave it there and ask if you have any questions. The architect is present. Mcdonough family is here, and well make some comments to you. I really appreciate the time that the staff has taken and the commission has taken in evaluating this. I want to be clear. We tried very hard to make modifications to this to accommodate the interests of the dr requestors. When i spoke to mr. Zucker a couple weeks ago, we provided a detailed elevation facing him so he could understand what it was we were proposing, but it really came down to whether we were willing to agree to reduce our extension to the rear. And we need to extend to the rear if this is going to be a feasible project. It really just doesnt make sense for this family if we cant get that family room. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there public testimony from supporters of the project . The other mic. Im susan mcdonough. Im an owner at 133 17th avenue. And i would like the commission to approve this project so that i can increase the Square Footage for my family. I have an 11 year old son and a 9 Year Old Girl and id like to add a second bathroom and would like to add a family room in the back of the house. We had a preapproval meeting which neither neighbor attended. Mr. Zucker followed up in email form. [speaker not understood] never contacted us directly. Eventually some time during the 311 period, i reached out to them, suggested we sit down. We took their considerations under advisement. We provided an alternative plan and we heard no response from either party. So, weve tried very hard to build a modest home in keeping with the arts and craft style. I think the house will still be under 2000 square feet, which is modest like the district standards and thats all. Do you guys have any questions for me . No . No, thank you. Thanks. Any further public testimony . Okay. Seeing none, dr requestor, you have a twominute rebuttal. If you desire. And to the second dr requestor. Just that we welcome the mcdonoughs to the neighborhood. Wed like to work with them. All the neighbors are supportive of the project right now, we dont have them, and i find that to be the shame. We respect their rights to have that, and we just would like them to respect our concerns as well and to work to resolve this apparent impasse. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have a twominute rebuttal. No . Okay. Then the public hearing portion is closed. Commissioners . Commissioner hillis. Mr. Zucker, can i ask you a question . I think the addition on balance is reasonable. I think they could probably be a little more neighborly on your side, and you showed that drawing. But i guess there werent details to it. But can you put that back up again . Maybe you just didnt explain kind of the last little compromise that was proposed. I also have its was the drawing of the addition setback on your side a little bit. This is an addition that was suggested by me, but it was actually drawn by their architect. Okay. And it was my hope and i actually [inaudible]. This is the plan that i suggested as a compromise solution. It had not worked with the photos with their proposals and their issues with this particular project. But i had centered the addition here into the center of the lot. I had slightly reduced its impact into the rear of the lot. And i had suggested that this was a starting point for discussions and negotiations. They came back with this plan over here and they said, well, well move the plan over a couple feet, still go to the far extension of the yard. Does the plan they drew show the extension going back, as far as it is currently proposed . That is correct. Two or three feet on your side, is that correct . I had actually set is it i did a cut and paste on their drawing. It goes out same 10 feet 8 inches. Setback from your Property Line . And additional two feet, that is correct. I guess a question for the project sponsor. Is that something you explored . I get it looks like [speaker not understood] added on to the back [speaker not understood] and its not that clear. I dont think the extension is extraordinary. But you could probably be a little, you know, a little more neighborly because the property with the twofoot setback, is that all that drawing does, set it back two feet on that side . If i can show the site plan, i can respond to that, commissioner hillis. Thank you for your question. The proposal that if we can zoom in, please, at the center here that alternate proposal not quite that much, thanks. Creates an lshaped room for a family room, which is just not a functional design. It doesnt work with a craftsman interior and frankly doesnt work well with the way a family, specifically a young family, lives. And if there is anything that we can say is truly uniform behind the facades of these arts and crafts style homes is a pattern of setbacks that goes all the way down the block. The side setbacks are absolutely that i get. I mean, my question is to that drawing that