Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 4, 2011 11:30pm-12:00am PST

11:30 pm
i brought his attention to the deck which i thought was larger than required was also shown sitting -- sitting on the surface of the roof. since this building la a wall around it and it butts under buildings and you'll have to have one hour fire protection against those other buildings, you would have -- and three feet high, you would of course have to do something to support the weight of the deck that is proposed. to support that weight and that 1357b of 17 feet was going to require some structure underneath. there by raising the height of the deck and the wall, et cetera. >> so, when i spoke with the architect, he seemed to indicate it wasn't an issue. i asked for a -- i asked for a section to examine, he said, he wouldn't -- he couldn't be bothered with it, it was too
11:31 pm
expensive. i hoped that i was -- i would hear from the architect or the sponsor at some point. this was what our arrangement was regarding these issues. i'm not unsympathetic to -- commissioner olague: thank you. any additional speakers for the d.r. requester? no. project sponsor? >> good evening. i'm the project -- i'm on the project. i would like to -- i would like 0 to respond to com pents. first of all, regarding the railing, we did talk about that. what i believe, if i use one-hour roof and the railing is not, is not -- it should be all right. well used to, we have -- we have five -- a wall which actually i
11:32 pm
think -- i think couple of projects before us, we talk about the wall going to -- too bulky from the lighting. that's why we want to use grass -- and one of the roof. so, we want you to have -- [unintelligible] that's my answer. i didn't know he was asking for special fashion on -- to answer that. i thought i answered that one. for the -- for the setback, actually, i think you might have these pictures. on the -- most of the beauty is actually, is -- is without any setbacks. all of those buildings, four-story, five-story, no setbacks. and some of them, recently developed, like these. and these ones have little
11:33 pm
setback, probably three, three foot or five foot maximum. so that's why i actually in the beginning, with -- with the project, we get to have a setback on the top floor. but after we talk to them and we received comments so with the setback actually now it is 20 from the front wall. so, we think that is actually these buildings for -- for all of those new developments, these buildings is going to be -- to have maximum setbacks for the whole block. and also for the roof deck -- actually, you could see from here, a lot of them have the roof back if the air, and also these ones. these bullpens -- these ones and the others have the roof decks. i don't know -- they probably
11:34 pm
have a setback and some of them have grass too. what we trying to do is do the roof deck. i didn't know this was a concern to -- to c.b. and i just heard from a couple of projects before this project. a and of course, rear -- actually -- actually -- in the drawing a-4 we have -- we have -- we -- since we received the call from neighbors about the privacy -- concerns, we -- we change the reading back to -- back to the rear wall of the stair. it is 17, 6, step back -- set back from the rear. we keep people walking closer between the two buildings. so we skeep 17 step back if the
11:35 pm
roof debt and we keep -- we push the unit as much as we can to the back it our side. so trying to -- to be back to the neighbors. that's -- that's all i can see on that. if anybody want to ask any question, they can. >> commissioner olague: thank you. >> the speakers in support of project sponsor? seeing none. d.r. requester, you have two minutes. >> thank you, i would like to point out a couple of items. first of all, with respect to -- to the planning staff, in fact, nobody from planning staff walked to the upper property for solar impact. they have up at the patio level and that's where the significant
11:36 pm
impact is on light. i think that's very important. i did have a person from staff come after all of it. after all of the dust settled, a few planner and he was definitely understanding. he said we had to go through the process. then he understood what i was talking about when it came to solar impact, which was really not factor ifed -- factored in properly ahead of time. in addition to the project sponsor, you know -- there -- i can't see any roof decks from my patio. i have one at the second floor roof deck. i could see one in the distance. there's not a abundance, and certainly hot the size and magnitude that they're talking about. i know we're not supposed to talk about with privacy. i know is -- it is -- >> we frequently sleep -- where we sleep is a huge privacy issue in addition to it is a solar
11:37 pm
issue. and with regard when you show the streetscape from my house down, the four houses down below are all smaller scale homes. they're all set back, they're all treated differently than the homes above and across the street that are multi-family homes. i think we're prying to preserve this historic -- we're trying to preserve the historic nature on the hill on the street. thank you so much. >> thank you. project sponsor? you have twoant mr.s. >> i think we only have one -- one d.r. requester. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i guess i'll let the professionals talk for me. but i want to go back to the beginning of the thing. >> state your name? >> i'm tim kennedy. okay. this -- mr. decker -- mr. beck bought the house next door to me. i immediately went and met with
11:38 pm
him in person. i -- i showed him my plan aths -- i showed him my plans and took him to my house. i told him the plans. he said at that time, i won't oppose you. i proceeded. essentially, mr. becker is going to lose his view. the building is directly across the street in front of him. my place is right over from the building. it cuts out his light. i agree. when i told him the man, he said that's the case, that is what you're going to do, then i'm going to do the same thing. he didn't want to go through the process i been through. i've been working on this since 2007 and they fought me at every turn. i think we have a brilliant design. i think it works well with the neighborhood. in fact, i think it would be a
11:39 pm
big a asset. i -- i -- i told you, he said he didn't want me to look into this bedroom. i offered to build a wall. that would prevent that from happening because this -- his -- his room is right across -- the alley. as far as the -- the air conditioning, you heard two different people telling you i don't care where the air conditioner is, so long as it is working. however, he likes to move it. essentially that's it. >> thank you. >> public hearing is closed. commissioners, sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i have a question for staff. on the first page of the drawing set that we received, there's -- on the site plan, it shows that the subject property is -- is --
11:40 pm
is -- about a half a block deep if you want to characterize it that way between greenwich and telegraph place. if you look at the photo that staff provided, is that where your house is? yes? there's an aerial here that sew shows the subject property facing greenwich and then a building in back of it. >> if you look at the subject property, the sponsor's property, at the rear of the property, you would be -- you would be -- telegraph place. >> right prp >> so msg rt -- >> so moving north directly behind is my property. >> is there any -- are you right up against each other there? there's no backyard. >> telegraph place is probably 20 feet wide. it is an alley street. the back of the subject property
11:41 pm
is on telegraph place. >> very good. thank you. then the -- the site plan is drawn wrong, is that right? >> no. the -- the site plan that you're referring to on page a-1. commissioner sugaya: yeah. >> indicates it is a through lot. it goes all the way through to the street. >> but the shaded part only ends halfway into the -- >> all the way to telegraph place. >> just not labeled on the north, on the top. it should be like -- >> okay. are there any, since we're scanneding the building. there's no backyard. or anything in this case. is there any kind of variance issue here? >> no? >> no open space requirements.
11:42 pm
>> they're not adding a unit. if they were adding that would be the case. but this is just expansion of an existing building. commissioner sugaya: but it was indicated that -- i guess from the residential design guideline, don't we usually talk about 15 feet in terms of -- of the foundation or expansion? specifically it is not a fixed point. >> ilike to argue that the staff. the staff has already indicated that this -- this is a historic resource and the reports that we have. so i think from that standpoint, i believe that you could see the upper floor at 10 feet. i think we -- i think the -- the -- the mockups -- that d.r. requester gave as -- as -- at least from his perspective illustrates that might be the case. i'm not saying that you know --
11:43 pm
staff indicated however that it might be a little visible. i like clarification on that before -- before -- before we -- i don't know what we're going to do. i don't know what we're going to do yet. but i like to have it not be visible, especially since this is a historic resource. to have it pushed back if necessary to at least -- i don't know, we could start at 15 feet if that's adequate to handle -- to handle what i think would be an impact on the historic resource, that would be preferable. the glass railings. we talked aud nauseam and maybe it would be better not to have them. then a couple of other things -- on the drawing on a-4, there's a note that says that the stucco above the garage door is going to be replaced with granite. i don't think that should be the case. it looks like the stucco above
11:44 pm
the garage door is original. if anything were to happen, they should just leave it alone and repair it. replace it in kind. then lastly, the windows i think are totally out of character to the architecture itself. if you look at the -- the existing elevation they're totally different kind of window. i think if windows are going to be replaced, they also should be replaced in kind. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm confused. i'm looking at a-2 and a-4. i don't know if we should put those on the overhead but it looks like, i'm looking at the front elevation on a-2. and i soum there's a setback -- i assume there's a set back and now we're coming forward with the building? it doesn't show the setback on there.
11:45 pm
exactly. it is okay. we're looking -- we're looking further this and now of course we're coming forward as you could see in these -- in these plans. so, that is the first thing that was a little confusing. you look at that. the other thing was -- the d.r. requester said it was going to be all glass. it looks like the replacement structure seems to have -- you know, looks like french windows. four in a row. i'm for the sure what the surface is. it. i guess it is a stucco surface around it. it looks like it tends to match the rest of the building as much as i can tell. your -- then i guess basically what we're looking at, where they show the views for light and air, we're looking at the front of the building or the rear of the building. i'm gettinging confused with these. the d.r. requester had -- that's the rear. okay.
11:46 pm
so that's -- that's going back in that direction too. i mean that -- that would seem to be the only impact. i don't see too much of an impact on the front of the building, it could be argued there's some impact on the back. and -- based upon the positioning of the -- of the building going back there. but -- i'll see what the other commissioners have to say on this. >> sure. >> i mean these -- the addition as it exists today is toward the rear of the building. what they're doing, they're moving closer toward greenwich street. >> okay. >> commissioner moore? >> i would -- i would actually -- i would very much follow commissioner sugaya -- really thoughtful taking apart the pieces. i would also agree similar to many other recent cases that the minimum setback, the minimum setback would be 15 feet plus. because it really shouldn't be
11:47 pm
-- leaving the demonstration as is, it will be -- a recall on the building with the total presentation is more french country than anything else. what i like to ask the architect. can you come up to the podium please. do you practice in san francisco? >> yes. >> the difficult thing for us is a comment -- we like to see the existing conditions and the proposed building. the vertical, and going back and forth, and the minor comments for you. commissioner moore: i'm concerned for fire code and the commissioner moore: i'm concerned for fire code and the side roof privacy that this deck really should be pulled back from tipping on -- sitting on the property line.
11:48 pm
6400 for roof deck. you got to have a large number of people and doing a structural thing. it interferes with the neighbors to an extent that there would be more people on the deck than you should have. i also expect and that's typically down throughout the roof deck, that any roof deck, for example the air conditioning should be tucked into -- into the railing of the -- i'm looking at a-2. it should be integrated into the rooftop, into the roof deck. in a way that it sits within the -- within the enclosed area. so that it does not create an extra protrusion on the roof or clutter. it is real simple. and i can speak for my own roof. i live a couple of hills over and -- by bringing it inside your railing &, it becomes an -- railing area, it becomes an
11:49 pm
object that deals with the okay paid part of the roof but it leaves the neighbor unencumbered. by pulling back into the rooftop &, you're bringing it away from bedroom rooms, et cetera. because most of the people in that area -- single pained windows. even if they have their windows closed, which most of us don't doe, because we don't use air conditioning in san francisco, we keep the windows open, that's part of the climate. i live in -- in -- in three-story wood structure -- three-story wood structure over the basement and some of my coresidents use the washing machine. you think that would be all fine. it would -- it would be that night i hear the washing machine three noors away. these are all quiet washing machines and modern ones. i'm trying to say, in a quiet
11:50 pm
neighborhood is really impact. the further you pull it away from the perimeter, visually as well as acousticly into your roof deck, and enclosed areas, the better it would be. i would encourage the commissioners to pull the roof deck back. this is live in some of our homes. 600 square feet. that's a home. that's a studio apartment. so i don't see that, i think that we need to really bring that back and still leave it a nice space and have to get away from the impact on the neighboring properties. who appreciate parties but they don't want to be impacted. falling back, sticking with the windows, comment on garage. all of that is acceptable. i still think the building is big for me for a single family. i want to hear what the other commissioners have to say. commissioner fong?
11:51 pm
commissioner fong: as far as the roof deck, there's no real yard. correct? so, to some degrees degree that's the outdoor space. looking at the photos, there's roof decks and phenomenal views. i understand the reason for that. >> i'm curious where we end up. i'm in favor of potentially moving back a bit. and preserving the roof deck. >> commissioner antonini. >> i was looking at the -- commissioner antonini: i was looking at the setback, it was a 10-foot setback for the third floor. i don't know -- what is the setback for the d.r. requesters. how far back is their third floor? do we know that? >> the d.r. requester, can we tell you how far back you are from the second floor on your third floor?
11:52 pm
>> 35, 40 feet. >> you're quite a ways back. thank you. that is a factor. and then the other question i have -- i don't see a lot of detail on the windows. they do go into some detail on the window replacements for the second floor. they look like they're wood windows, hopefully of high quality that of course would be the same as what is on there now. i expect the same thing would happen on the third floor. architect, is that the case? >> actually they need to call me and told me about the hookup to tell me the window -- we changed the style. that's how we want to do it. you pay the exact same style and window back so it is not going to change the style. we going to put exactly the same
11:53 pm
window back. >> sure. always the same one that is are 24r -- there -- on the second floor. you put new wood windows, replacing in the same as the existing ones. on your third floor, dot same type of window that blends with the second floor. >> i see. yeah. commissioner antonini: i want to make sure that the upper floor doesn't have some kind of vinyl window or something that -- that would be high quality. i'm just, i can't tell from thee from the sketches because it doesn't give the details. i would expect that it will be also -- wood windows of the same type that you have on your second floor. >> we only put -- put -- photograph. and -- >> you do have to have a door, one of them is a french door probably to get out to the patio, i expect.
11:54 pm
>> yeah. >> so open. it is bigger size. >> yeah. >> all right. >> well. >> i think staff would work with you on that to make sure it looks appropriate with the rest of the building. >> sure. >> yeah. i would probably be supportive of going back a little on that. while still allowing them -- adequate size for their -- their bedroom and the other facilities they want to put on that third floor. it looks like, if we do go back a little further, we still could have a fairly good size master bedroom and bath up there. i wouldn't go any further back than the total of 15 feet. let's see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner sugaya. >> it looks like we're going in the same direction. >> i'll make a motion. we'll take d.r. and -- the staff will work with -- with the project sponsor to -- to -- to
11:55 pm
come up with an appropriate setback, starting at perhaps 15 feet, but i like to have it so that -- well, let's say a might not numb of 15 feet. and -- minimum of of 15 feet. no glass railings on the building. second floor windows would be -- replaced in kind. the granite and in above the door, garage door would be -- would be -- the existing stuck can he would be repaired or, the stucco would be replaced. and no granite. what else? >> the upper floor, i think that -- i think following commissioner moore's suggestion it perhaps staff should work with the project architect, on -- designer on pulling the deck away from the property lines, i don't have a size.
11:56 pm
but i think if they could relocate, it -- what is it -- >> further into the -- into the middle of the building. that would be preferable. >> take d.r. >> how do you get the last? >> move the unit further to the middle of the structure. >> yeah. commissioner moore suggesting perhaps in to the roof deck area. a way of doing it. it is like an object there. you don't even see it. >> the direction is clear. >> i seconded. >> commissioners, take d.r. and approve the project with modifications, the ones i've gotten are minimum of 15-foot setback, project sponsor will
11:57 pm
work with staff on that. that there will be no glass railing that -- that -- that the unit would be replaced, would be placed somewhere in the new roof deck area. that that windows -- windows would be replaced. the second floor windows would be replaced in kind. the stucco around the garage door would be replaced. >> stucco. >> would be replaced with stucco or left alone. whatever. >> i think the roof deck itself should be pulled away from the property lines to make it smaller. >> didn't have that. >> no glass railings. >> i have no -- the no glass railings. >> that would be pulled back. >> no. this is just on the two sides. i don't know, i don't think it should -- commissioner sugaya with your permission, a foot or two at the most. they'll lose your space if you
11:58 pm
go to far. >> upper deck pullback. >> i wanted to say. it was minimum of 15 feet. i want staff to work with it. if it requires a setback and make it invisible from the street. that's my intent. >> my notes say, a minimum of 15 feet. they would work with staff. >> not make it visible. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye fong aye moore aye sugaya aye miguel aye olague aye. thank you, that motion passes unanimously. >> koll missioners, now general public -- commissioner, now general public comment. the members have two minutes each to address you on items of the public but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission? >> any general public comment? seeing none, it is closed and the meeting adjourned.
11:59 pm