tv [untitled] September 20, 2014 2:00am-2:31am PDT
what they recommended or shown you, for the existing building. >> and right, i get that, and yeah, it seems to be. but, in the larger building, could you point to where the folks that who, or... >> the folks that you have heard from today, someone was in this building? >> yeah, and another person was in this building and so it is our our conclusion that they would be affected at this level if they come out and there will be no souther exposure for this property at least for the rear window and this is mr. bunback's property. >> is there a picture of the backyard of the subject
property. >> and the staff reports and i will get through here in a moment. >> and this picture might be helping and this one, and kind of angled. and >> and that is the on the overhead, now with over of the ground level picture. and so, there will only be a five foot opening between the end of the or the rear wall proposed edition. >> yes. >> and in this side wall of the building right there, and so, i mean, no more would the sun, in our opinions hit the back of this from the southern exposure perspective. >> right. >> okay. >> and so, let me ask the project sponsor a question and, so back to that, and this 82.1 of the so i think that the planning staff and kind of correctly, is pointing to those attic space up there and which you don't and which you really
don't take advantage of, and i get the concern about, you don't want to go and encroach too far in the front because you start to kind of, you know, lose some of that, and some of the integrity of the building, and of the historic nature of the building if you can see that from the front. >> i am not sure if that is the whole, you know, that is the whole, explanation, because, if i do with the space and i can put in the dorm ers? it is too low and it is too narrow. >> let me just propose, i don't think that i have a problem with the first floor going out to the length, and i some what disagree with the staff on the first floor going out, like you taking that additional five feet does not seem problematic to me, right? and so if you look at the interior space and you start to get, and it would be hard if you came back five feet because it cuts into that family room and then you start to kind of reconfigure how that space
looks on the first floor and i think that on the second floor is where it is problematic, because, you and you are bumping out on the second floor and adding this bedroom, and yet, there is room, you know, you have got room between kind of in that attic space, that if you came and if you kept the second floor at the existing property line, and pulled it back, if you put that room, upstairs, started it, at the existing property line, and that is your existing second floor and dorm er it out and make that edition, you are cutting into some of that already. >> this is the architect. >> okay. >> my name is andy rogers and i am the architect, and i think that i can help to clarify just a little bit, the existing house, the existing house from the rear, this drawing shows it pretty well, and there is on
this second level, there is really no vertical walls along the side. >> right. >> in other words, in order to build that out and make it ha bitable, one could do dormer but you will need to get to a reasonable height and, this shows an eight-foot height and that is our interpretation. >> even if you took the second and you took that second floor bedroom and bath. >> right. >> and shifted it towards the street. >> right. where the end of that was at the existing wall. >> you know, you would not, you are not going to come as far as what is here, and you could keep it at the same kind of roof line, that you have proposed in the back now. and you would start using some of the attic space instead of leaving that in the dead attic space and the second floor space and i don't think that you will have to come as far to the street as this drawing shows because that is showing much and that is almost two
bedrooms up there and not one bedroom. >> right. >> and then you don't interfere, and you don't kind of and you don't start to interfere with the light in the air on the second floor and you would allow some light to your property owner north i guess. >> is that north. >> and i think that there are two reasons, and one is if that building extends further towards the street, that top level becomes more visible, and at some point, we are going to bump into, you know, yeah,... >> where that point is. >> yeah. >> and the point is not there. >> right. >> and the other consideration, is just cost of construction. and it has been made clear, we are in a pretty limited budget with this project and the further toward the street we extend the more that we have to fully rebuild the structure and all of those vertical loads have to come down. >> i get it, but you are doing it all and you are coming into your existing building, with your existing foundation now.
>> right. >> and i mean, that i would imagine that as you get into this, you are probably going to replace and it would make sense not to just stop where you are add. in that second floor and foundation and continue on with the entire foundation. >> right. >> i don't think that it is enormous. >> at some point it becomes a seismic upgrade, and at a certain threshold, the price of the construction goes up pretty exorbantly. >> i don't have a problem with what you are proposing on the ground floor, i think that on the top floor, you are kind of leaving the attic space and adding on and we are leaving kind of the dead attic space but i think that you could add into it without starting to impede the front of the building and the look and feel of the front of the building. we will hear from the other commissioners. >> could i clarify, commissioner hillis, are you
talking about the additional two feet in addition to the three feet that they have already come, or are you not putting a number on it. >> i tried to get your program, and i see that the house, you know, you are trying to get a bedroom and a bathroom upstairs on the size of that is you know, 16 feet... >> correct. >> 16 feet, 6 inches. and the current depth of the house is... of the second floor... >> i think that on sheet a3.0 of their current proposal, the
one with the flat roof which is shows the proposed north elevation, you know, what they are showing is the 3-foot set back from the rear building wall and the additional two feet on top of that would meet the staff recommendation of not extending the five feet that we are currently on these plans, and that is, you know, they are showing the dimension of 6 feet where it says the existing and new and so right now they are cutting into the existing building, by 6 feet to square it off. and for the bathroom and, so, you know, it would essentially take that second story and shift it two feet more towards the front, and they would be maintaining a five feet set back at the rear and they would be going eight feet into the existing building envelope, and kind of reconfiguring that attic, and in there is the question about if it is a flat roof verses a cable roof and how that may impact the neighbors. >> yeah, and i think that is even more modest than what i was talking to because you are
coming back to the side piece that the staff recommends and i was talking about coming back to the existing and i think that if we think that the five feet gets right in there and to the adjacent, neighbor, that could be too, and it is calling two more feet on the top and it is just a matter of how much you shift that top floor into the existing attic space. >> i would like to add one more point about the thought of moving the upper level toward the street and that is in addition to part of it, the additional construction, cost, is that it gets less possible for our clients to live in the house during the construction, because, that floor system has to be rebuilt and that means that the ceiling comes out and in the kitchen, and in the construction and the more that we keep it to the back the easier it is to accomplish while they are living there and we are building a new foundation back there any how and the reason that it is moving... >> i got it. >> thank you.
>> commissioner richards? >> so this is my first hearing and we dealing with such small spaces that have such enormous impact and you are really, you are crimping the light that is coming from the south to the neighbor to the north and i kind of get that and i am kind of going along with the commissioner hillis's thoughts and i guess that the question that i have is can you tell me about what kind of seismic upgrading that you are going to do with the plan as it is if we didn't take the dr. >> we would do a voluntary seismic upgrade. >> what would that entail? >> entail looking at the best and the most effective things that we could do for the dollar, which is insuring that the foundation is bolted, and putting in sheer walls where they are going to make the biggest difference and insuring that the posts are bolted to the beams. and that kind of thing. >> so you would keep the brick foundation and just bolt it. >> i am not sure actually, we have not gone that far in the
engineering. >> we would for sure, spend some money to give it the most lateral stability as possible. >> you are doing all of this work on this house it seems to me that this is the time to actually redo the foundation. >> right. >> to make it really not a seismic but something more than maybe keeping the brick foundation and putting the wads in it. >> i suspect that some of the brick walls will be replaced with the concrete walls if we could avoid doing the entire perimeter, and do it where it is effective. >> the question that i have is the residential design team proposal if we did push that, the project forward, at what point does it require a full seismic upgrade? how many feet? >> and it is a little bit of a gray area and i am not exactly sure. >> okay. >> it is more of a structural engineering question, and in part it has to do with how much square footage is being added
verses how much is exists, and when you are adding to a place, horizontal instead of adding above, it is more forgiving in terms that have ratio. >> and i guess that i am more going along with commissioner hillis's thoughts on the potentially maybe keeping the first flee bumped out and the second floor back in. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore i was going to ask him who bunched the button to weigh in more and elevating the discussion that you had in the residential design team and i am gravitating to what commissioner hillis and commissioner richards is saying and i believe that the impact on the adjoining properties, and they are just too large, and we have many, other applications in front of us and it is weighing the balance,
anything else that they want including the cost that i do not personally believe that just pushing the existing things and into the expansion as being the seismic upgrade and then tying the non-upgraded structure into that and saying that it is a voluntary upgrade is enough for me and i believe that we need to work with the circumstance as it presents itself in the last ten years, and we have added staff, for helps, and the planning department, and the commission, to elevate the discussion internally, and i take the recommendation of the observations by our professional team very seriously and they also need to recommend to this commission, to keep a balance between all of the things to look at. there is no maliciousness, but we need to look at the impact as it effects the alarging of this building relative to everyone else and it is a equal world and what is between all
is what the main thrust of what we discuss here, and so if you could perhaps elevate the discussion of your internal review of this project it will be good for me. >> i don't know how much it will elevate it, because, this dialogue that you have been having really, is roughly, mirrors the same and acknowledge the other quality and look for a solution that did not compromise the spatial needs but better met the community needs, but you are suggesting the additional two feet would be basically reflect the totality of the recommendation. >> and the modification above.
>> i would basically have to support it, because it is a bigger discussion in which we are making the decision and i am all supportive and reduction of cost and findings way to minimize it, but there are other ways of how that can be done and so i make a motion that we do take the dr and we work with the parameters as said by the department, and including any modifications and i did not hear them, clearly, so we need to be restated and i think that the department made the correct recommendation and i ask that we support. >> second. >> yeah. >> second. >> could i ask the staff if, to, maybe restate what has been discussed so that it is clear? and going back to the drawing on the overhead, and a sheet, 3.0, and staff recommendation is to cut the building back to
the existing rear wall, which is five feet, obviously that is an approximate, but that the second floor would still be above. so this will still be a two story, portion right here and so the existing lean-to that you see right here. >> so what i heard discussed was actually allowing the commissioner hillis, correct me if i am wrong, allowing the ground floor as drawn in that drawning, could you shift it down please? but cutting the second floor, approximately where you have drawn that line. is that accurate? >> i was more amenable to the second floor, staying kind of the length. the depth that it is, and stepping back the top floor. >> and i just was not sure if that was the motion that was made. >> and i don't believe. >> and okay. >> my understanding of the motion... >> the motion, no was to take. >> to take the staff recommendation. >> and dr and approve the project for modifications.
>> i would be supportive. i mean that would i be supportive of the first floor because i think that, you know, if you look at the kind of the layout of the first floor if you cut that back five feet from what we are proposing it does not get you a very functional addition in the back >> commissioners if i may, i spoke to the neighbor next door, who will be affected the most by this project, and he does not have a big concern regarding the ground floor extension. >> yeah. >> up to five feet. >> but what he wants to be pulled back more is on the upper floor and so i think that the closer that we can come to maybe meeting that the more that it will address his concerns, i think that the department can go along with that as well >> i am prepared to modify the motion to say that we modify the upper floor, but not the ground floor, and that is acceptable, if that is a solution that we can live with, then, i would be comfortable in doing that. >> but i, but i also wanted to
state that, the staff recommendation was to cut the upper floor back by five feet and i think that if we are going to allow the ground floor to come out the whole distance that he is looking for more of a cut back than five feet on the top floor. >> so, i don't mind hearing from the neighbor, if that is... >> okay >> mack >>... make a motion. >> i have comments. >> i don't really. >> the property. >> and yeah it should be there. >> and proposed and then she... >> i just want to clarify in the interest of compromise, you have had in two minutes, with their attorney, and the project sponsors you have had more discussion in the first two minutes just than i have had in all of the years and what we have been trying to say is that we would support them doing what they need to do, at the second floor of their property, to the end of the building, and i am drawing that where the shed begins. >> right. >> nearest to the house. >> and commissioner hillis, if
i understand you correctly that is what you were saying, just move that a few more feet forward and still far from the road, and we understand that and we have the impact on light, on us and we just want our backyard, you know we just want to have the open space and for the first floor, you know we do what, and we... >> and okay. >> go back to... >> that is originally what i had proposed. yeah. thank you. >> i just want... >> thank you. >> and that is the reason why i proposed to go back to the ... but it is hard to determine how far that is given the plans and how they are drawn right now because it does not necessarily get you there and i don't know if, and because this is a variance, too, so, that is correct and i would say that you know tha, this discussion is very eliminating as well for me and i would also go along the lines of the variance of allowing it at the ground level but restricting it at the floor
above if that is at five feet or something more and i think that another thing to take a look at and we don't want to beat this to death, but, reform itself and going between the gable and the flat roof because the flat roof over all, the height, may be less, but the height is higher at the five property line and therefore the impact may be greater, than the neighbor and so, i just wanted to point that out and i think that it is cognoscente as well and i think that it is a minimal couple of feet but having that higher wall, at that and along the property line and it looks like the current shed extends about eight feet passed that rear building wall and proposing to come out five feet further and for a 13 foot total from that wall and if you were thinking that, that second story, would be above the existing building entirely and not extend above the shed is that what you were thinking? >> originally yes. >> and it would be shifting it
essentially, and i mean that unfortunately the plans and maybe not, completely dimensioned as they could be held a quick analysis. >> and you know, right now, it would be shifting it ten feet, ten feet, i think that it will be ten feet further back. to get back to that point where it is in the same position as the existing rear wall and the building wall? >> and just for clarification, there is a motion that has been seconded but i believe that it has been amended to allow the ground floor expansion and so the only question that we are playing with is the second story. >> yeah, the upper floor line, if i go over in my mind and the comments that were made by the commissioners we are taking the existing rear wall of the existing building, and not the shed, of the existing main building. as being the dividing line of
where the set back will be. >> yeah. >> i mean to me that i think that you get the... you can get the program, you are all looking for, you know, granted it may be some additional foundation costs along that ten feet on both sides but it seems to me that you have a concrete foundation in some areas of the driveway and of the garage, and then, you kind of get the neighbor's objective and you get the first floor and you get the second floor with a bedroom and it is just shifted father to the street and i don't think that it is enough to be a big impact to the front of the building. >> one thing if i may to note and they do have a tight floor plan on that lower level, and right now the stairs to access the master bedroom are in the rear and in the new edition and, so if it were to be brought back in line with the existing rear building wall they would no longer be, able to access in that area >> you could put the stairs