No Bookmarks Exist.
All right. And it is 3:00 PM. I will call this meeting to order Tuesday, March 12th Architectural Review Board meeting. 00:00:12
May have a roll call. 00:00:21
Chair Bornstein. 00:00:26
Vice Chair Boyle. 00:00:29
Here, Secretary Brooks. 00:00:30
We have three present. 00:00:33
One vacancy, 1 absent, we do have a quorum. 00:00:36
Thank you. Moving on to item number two, approval of the agenda. 00:00:40
Can I ask for a motion to approve? I'll move to approve. 00:00:47
I'll second. 00:00:52
Roll call. 00:00:57
We don't have to do roll call anymore. If you don't want. I'll do it. I'm happy to do it. If that's what you can prefer. Yeah. You 00:01:00
just have to say all in favor, All in favor. 00:01:04
Aye. 00:01:09
Aye. 00:01:12
OK. I want to item number three, board and staff announcements. 00:01:16
Any board announcements? 00:01:22
I don't have anything. 00:01:25
Staff announcements. 00:01:27
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Bornstein. My name is Karen Vaughn. I'm the city's new community development director and just 00:01:31
wanted to pass on a few announcements. 00:01:36
First, the City Council held a budget workshop in February where they discussed. 00:01:42
The councils goals and priorities for the upcoming year. 00:01:49
In anticipation of moving into budget season for next fiscal year and the Interim City Manager has graciously offered to come and 00:01:53
do a brief presentation at each of the BCC meetings to go over what the City councils goals and priorities are. So we've got him 00:01:59
scheduled for your meeting next month in April. 00:02:06
To do that presentation. 00:02:13
And then also, as you're aware, the BCC handbook is under revision by the City Manager, City attorney, and City Council. 00:02:15
And that is scheduled on the City Council agenda next week on March 20th. 00:02:25
And once those revisions are adopted by council, the interim city manager and city attorney are going to be preparing some 00:02:31
training sessions for our BCCS. 00:02:36
And so we're hoping that that will also be occurring either in April or in early May. So that's something to look forward to. 00:02:42
Excellent. Thank you. 00:02:49
OK, moving on to item number 4. 00:02:53
Council liaison announcements. 00:02:56
And as I understand, Luke Colletti will be standing in for Debbie Buck. 00:03:04
This see on the. 00:03:08
I do not see him. 00:03:13
All right. Moving on to general public comment item number 5. 00:03:20
This is for items not on the agenda. 00:03:25
Are there any members in the audience that wish to speak? 00:03:29
Right seeing any motoring attendees wishing to speak for items not on the agenda. 00:03:34
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:03:43
Good afternoon, Chair. I'm sorry, but your microphone you are coming in fuzzy so I don't know what that is and I haven't really 00:03:49
heard anyone else, but yours is distorted, so thank you. 00:03:55
Maybe that can be fixed? 00:04:04
Thank you for that feedback. We have Lisa Gianni. 00:04:12
Thank you. I would just like to encourage ARB to request that Council. 00:04:19
Urge the Public Works Department to. 00:04:27
Bring back the. 00:04:32
I'm sorry. 00:04:35
I'm sorry. There was a voice there. I don't know. Can you hear me? 00:04:37
Yes, we can hear you OK. I would like you to urge Council to request Council to urge the Public Works Department to bring back the 00:04:42
archaeological protocol draft. 00:04:48
That they ran out of money somehow while public works over the last 2 1/2 years. Now it's been was was fiddling with it was they. 00:04:57
They apparently didn't like the draft, so. 00:05:03
Umm So Planning Commission didn't get to review it, nor did council. 00:05:12
And so you guys have been you and. 00:05:17
The Historic Resources Committee and. 00:05:22
The Planning Commission have been operating with. 00:05:26
Without a. 00:05:29
Archaeological protocol. 00:05:33
Despite the fact that a consultant was hired in at the end of. 00:05:37
2020. 00:05:45
Yeah. 00:05:50
And and there needs to be some consistency, there needs to be respect for tribal. 00:05:52
UH leaders and and tribal monitors I. 00:06:00
And and. 00:06:04
There's I can't get a I'm sorry I'm stumbling here. I I can't get a clear answer from the public works. 00:06:06
Director of. 00:06:17
When he will bring this back, it's been since. 00:06:19
Let's see that was October, September that Planning Commission heard the presentation by the the. 00:06:25
Consult. 00:06:33
But there it was after 10:00 and um. 00:06:35
So they they continued it to be discussed the next time. 00:06:39
And the next time? 00:06:45
They found out that that the project, the yeah, the project had run out of money. So I. 00:06:47
This is this. 00:06:57
Initiated by the city manager back in 2020 because of a an appeal of a city project that did not handle. 00:06:59
Archaeological resource protection correctly. 00:07:10
And so it really it's it's very important to get this going and and I hope. 00:07:14
That if. 00:07:19
Council hears from you. They they. 00:07:22
Take action on. 00:07:25
I I finally got it going last year but it only got so far. It only got to the presentation stage and that was it. 00:07:29
Thank you. 00:07:38
Thank you. 00:07:42
We have no further hands raised. 00:07:47
All right. Moving on to our consent agenda, would any members of the public like to pull anything from the consent agenda? 00:07:49
Right. 00:08:00
Chambers or online? I'll bring it back to the board and entertain a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. 00:08:03
I'll move that we approve the consent agenda as submitted. 00:08:12
2nd. 00:08:16
All in favor. 00:08:19
Aye, aye. 00:08:20
That brings us to our regular agenda. 00:08:25
Public hearings. 00:08:27
Item number 8A. We will begin with architectural permit and variance. 00:08:30
At 201st St. and 100 and sorry 113 2nd St. 00:08:35
May we have a staff report please? 00:08:42
Yes. 00:08:51
This proposed project would include the demolition. 00:08:54
Of an existing garage. 00:08:58
House and accessory dwelling unit. 00:09:00
An additional site improvements in the construction of a new 3255 square foot, one story residence. 00:09:03
With an attached garage in the R3 PGR zoning district. 00:09:12
And the city's coastal zone. 00:09:17
Because the project is located within the city's coastal zone, it requires Planning Commission approval. 00:09:20
Of the architectural permit, the associated variance, and the coastal development permit. 00:09:27
The site contains approximately 8448 square feet. 00:09:35
And there's a corner lot whose intersection. 00:09:40
Who's intersecting corner property lines are found along a curve. It has project frontage. 00:09:45
Along three public streets, 1st St. Central Ave. and 2nd St. 00:09:51
On February 26th of 2020, the HRC. 00:09:58
Remove the Subject property from the city's Historic Resources Inventory. 00:10:02
Finding that the property did not have. 00:10:07
Historics. It was not historically significant. 00:10:10
And the HRC's signed resolution was attached to the staff report in your agenda packet. 00:10:14
As proposed, the project would comply with the zoning regulations. 00:10:23
Of the R3 PGR. 00:10:28
Zoning district. This includes building height, setbacks, gross floor area. 00:10:30
Allowable site and building coverage. 00:10:37
There is an allowance within the R3 PGR zoning district that allows the front yard to be reduced. 00:10:43
To four feet for up to 50% of the front of the building. 00:10:51
The project has been designed to utilize this provision of the zoning code. 00:10:55
However, that provision is not available to properties that are located in the coastal zone. 00:10:59
This is the variance that is associated with the project and would require Planning Commission approval in order to allow the 00:11:07
project to be constructed as proposed. 00:11:12
As designed, the project would be compatible. 00:11:19
With the neighborhood which is comprised of small to medium sized one story and two-story. 00:11:22
Single family residences. 00:11:28
With a variety of different architectural styles and scales. 00:11:31
This project is designed most similarly to a contemporary Craftsman style home. 00:11:35
The existing structures on the site include A2 story single family home. 00:11:44
And a detached garage fronting onto Central Ave. 00:11:49
The driveway to that garage. 00:11:52
Is at the corner edge of Central Ave. and 2nd St. 00:11:55
With inadequate distance from that intersection. 00:12:00
A detached Adu. 00:12:04
Is located behind the garage and it faces 2nd St. 00:12:07
But the detached garage and that Adu. 00:12:12
Are approximately 6 inches from the 2nd St. property line based on Sydney records and the applicants information. 00:12:16
Because they are only set back 6 inches from the street, they are considered non conforming as to setbacks. 00:12:28
Because the proposed project. 00:12:35
Includes the demolition of those existing structures and the construction. 00:12:37
Of the new single family residence. 00:12:42
With a with a set back averaging anywhere from 4 to 8 feet from the 2nd St. property line. 00:12:46
The proposed project would bring. 00:12:53
The property into closer conformance. 00:12:56
With the requirements the set back requirements of the cities local coastal program implementing plan. 00:12:59
Specifically by reducing building height in order to maintain. 00:13:08
And enhance public views. 00:13:12
The desired pedestrian scale and community character. 00:13:14
Of the. 00:13:19
The architectural style and materials and site design are in substantial conformance with the City's Architectural Review 00:13:25
Guidelines. 00:13:29
Specifically, guidelines #1. 00:13:33
4627. 00:13:36
34 and 38. 00:13:39
Staff has made findings. 00:13:42
In support of those guidelines in the staff report. 00:13:44
A preliminary archaeological assessment was prepared on behalf of the applicant for the project. 00:13:52
The assessment found that the property has undergone moderate to substantial ground disturbance. 00:13:59
Dating all the way back to 1922. 00:14:05
And that records that exist for the property have not indicated or resulted in known archaeological resources. 00:14:08
Or site indicators of those resources on the property. 00:14:16
Staff has included several conditions of approval that were recommended by the assessment. 00:14:21
In the draft permit that were attacked that was attached to the staff report in the agenda packet. 00:14:27
The applicant has not provided A detailed lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the local coastal program and the 00:14:34
architectural. 00:14:38
Guidelines staff has conditioned the project to require this information. 00:14:42
Be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 00:14:49
Staff recommends forwarding the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. 00:14:54
We do find in favor and support of the variance. 00:15:01
I requested for the front set back along 2nd Ave. 00:15:07
Staff is also requesting that minor amendments to the permit. 00:15:12
Be included in the Arby's recommendation? 00:15:19
Those corrections would include correcting the owner's name and date of the project plans. 00:15:25
And striking the redundant conditions of approval pertaining to cultural resources. 00:15:32
And procedural requirements. 00:15:38
Should cultural resources be found on the property? 00:15:40
I can answer any questions that you have. 00:15:44
Any questions for staff? 00:15:50
All right, seeing them, invite the applicant or owner up to make a presentation if you'd like, and you will have 10 minutes. 00:15:56
OK, Jeannie Byrne, architect for the project. 00:16:16
Thank you for that staff report. 00:16:21
So just to go over some of the criteria that we went through designing this project. 00:16:24
We started with the site planning and 1st consideration was correcting the safety issue with the driveway which currently is off 00:16:30
central. 00:16:34
So the solution for that was to move the driveway. 00:16:41
And the front entrance to 2nd St. which is much more in keeping with other properties in that neighborhood. 00:16:44
Also, we oriented the house I. 00:16:53
So that it opens to the South, opening up the Senate part of the yard. 00:16:56
And it takes it away from the the two-story house that's at the back so. 00:17:00
Their public space for the new house won't interfere with the neighborhood to the back. 00:17:08
Also this preserves sort of that open view that when you're coming from Monterey on Central towards Pacific Grove, you see kind of 00:17:15
across the property and we would maintain that. 00:17:21
The architectural design criteria we it is a single story residence that's replacing the existing two-story houses there. 00:17:29
Has an open floor plan and is. 00:17:38
Again, oriented to the open space on the South. 00:17:41
The architectural guidelines for the retreat were referred to in keeping with the character of their retreat, such as scale, roof, 00:17:47
pitch materials. 00:17:51
And including the option in the retreat to reduce the front yard set back to four feet. 00:17:55
For presenting to the front building elevation. 00:18:02
And that was done years ago. 00:18:05
In order to keep that retreat area from looking like track housing as new projects go in because, as you know, the retreat. 00:18:08
Has set everything from zero front yard set back to 20 feet so. 00:18:17
We thought that was an important condition to maintain. 00:18:25
Style wise, the project is a simple contemporary Craftsman. 00:18:32
With board and bat siding, 8 and 12 roof pitch. 00:18:37
And it reflects. 00:18:41
Sort of the original tent cottage look that was. 00:18:44
The original. 00:18:48
Retreat if you've seen some of the old pictures. 00:18:49
So in summary, project meets all the zoning, code requirements, setbacks, lot, coverage, height, floor, area. 00:18:53
And the variances specifically to meet the design criteria. 00:19:00
Of the retreat. 00:19:04
If you have any questions and I'd like to save some time if there's any comments. 00:19:05
Thank you. 00:19:11
Any questions or? 00:19:12
All right. Thank you. And for now. 00:19:15
We will go ahead and open a public comment then for this item is there. 00:19:19
Anyone in the? 00:19:23
Zoom World. 00:19:25
I would like to speak. 00:19:27
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:19:30
Thank you, Chair. 00:19:36
And. 00:19:38
In a nutshell. 00:19:40
This proposed project will eliminate another long standing Pacific Grove housing unit. 00:19:44
Lowering our arena numbers. 00:19:52
And it. 00:19:55
Apologies, Miss Don. I won't. 00:20:02
Get you back. 00:20:04
Am I still here? 00:20:07
Yes, we can hear you. 00:20:10
Thank you. Have you heard any of my comments? 00:20:12
Yes, we just had a momentary pause. 00:20:15
Thank you. 00:20:18
It's going. This variance asks for much more non conforming mass and feet on a narrow 2nd St. 00:20:21
When a demolishment of an existing nonconformity in our code calls for a rebuild to bring it back into conformity. 00:20:30
The footprint of this project. I wish you had a picture up of what's there now. 00:20:41
I mean the existing house that's going to be demolished. I wish you could bring a picture up of that. 00:20:47
And OK, this will be the best that I can do then on this, the footprint of the project adds another 838 square feet more to the 00:20:55
existing footprint coverage. 00:21:01
As only a smaller portion. 00:21:07
Of the existing house is 2 story. It has one large room upstairs, and adus are not supposed to be counted and included in square 00:21:10
footage. I mean, maybe that works both ways. If you include them when you want to demolish one and you want to when you want to 00:21:18
put one in, of course you don't include it. I don't know. 00:21:25
Anyway, only it's not really a two-story house, it just has one room. 00:21:34
This two-story the existing house on. 00:21:39
Kind of the north side. 00:21:44
Northwest. 00:21:46
The current home that has been there all my life of 70 plus years fits the site on Central Ave. Avenues Iconic curve. 00:21:50
Where traffic splits to stay on Central. 00:22:00
Headed for downtown or Veer? Right to head down to down 1st St. to Ocean View Blvd. Pacific Rose Main Coastal Rd. 00:22:04
The proposed project is bulky and choppy. 00:22:16
The landmark curve is where we erect our oversized signs for Pacific Grove Good old days and direct traffic to AT&T shuttles. 00:22:21
Their current home was painted a lighter pink previously and was always known as the Pink House. 00:22:30
And I am talking 70 years here. I know what the historic report says. And I was at that meeting when Allison Hunter was the 00:22:38
planner and it was deemed it didn't have enough integrity. 00:22:44
I don't do not see that a variance for more nonconformity. 00:22:52
Is necessary in the coastal zone. 00:22:57
To prohibit the owners from building a larger house. 00:23:01
It's really too bad that a high density property in the coastal zone again is being proposed for a single family non conforming 00:23:08
dwelling. 00:23:13
Demolition is such a destructive, polluting solution to homes that are the fabric of our neighborhood character. 00:23:19
My view from my front door would be the backside of the garage and higher mass on 2nd St. 00:23:27
And with ATC wanting the other end of slowed Ave. our little one block is their service entrance. My one block residential Ave. 00:23:35
will be sandwiched between 2 backsides. 00:23:41
Thank you for your comments to see this go. 00:23:48
Thank you. 00:23:52
We have Kim. 00:23:54
Thank you guys for taking my call. I just asked for two conditions on this because it is in the coastal zone and earshot. 00:24:01
Of the harbor Seal Beach there, I would ask that no demolition occurred during the pupping season. 00:24:09
And that the construction trucks come and go on Central and not passing the puffing beach. 00:24:17
So those are the two conditions I would ask for. We have the two. 00:24:26
Ordinances. 00:24:30
Protecting the harbor. 00:24:31
And so I would just ask for that. Thank you very much. 00:24:34
Thank you. 00:24:39
We have Lisa Ciani. 00:24:43
Thank you. 00:24:48
Let me find this here, OK? 00:24:49
It is hard to understand how city staff can continue to recommend approval of removing affordable housing units on one hand, while 00:24:53
it's looking for additional affordable units for the six cycle housing element on the other. 00:24:59
If this project is approved, it will be at least the 10th affordable unit this year to be removed from PG's housing stock, 00:25:07
considering 111 10th St. where an Adu will be incorporated into a residential remodel to make the historic house bigger, and 270 00:25:15
Central Ave. where the eight affordable units in a historic house will be converted to lodging. 00:25:23
This is not a responsible approach to increasing PGS affordable housing. This project should be redesigned to avoid removing an 00:25:31
affordable housing unit. 00:25:37
And you know a perfectly. 00:25:42
Useful house. 00:25:46
But the design part, you know I'll leave to you but. 00:25:48
But we need to be doing something about affordable housing and this. 00:25:53
Taking units away is not is not helpful my other concern. 00:25:59
Is the confusing conditions of approval and and I guess Miss Sanders referred to this, but I just want to make sure #2. 00:26:05
Condition Approval #2 provides for cultural resource sensitivity training by a qualified archaeologist, which is an excellent 00:26:17
condition to have. 00:26:21
But #3 and #4 only provide for inadvertent discovery language beyond that. 00:26:26
Conditions of approval #13 and 14 Repeat number three and four. Condition of approval #12 provides for archaeological monitoring 00:26:32
which is appropriate and should be approved, but tribal monitoring is not specified only in archaeologists. Public works has 00:26:39
delayed the archaeological protocol for which there is a draft aside explained in my general public comment. The project is in the 00:26:47
coastal zone and protection of archaeological. 00:26:54
Resources in that archaeologically sensitive area is still necessary as well as consideration. 00:27:03
Of tribal concerns whether or not the the CDP is involved, which is not in this case. 00:27:09
Acosta Archaeology does not speak for the Aloni Costa No and Esalen nation, but one of their archaeologists is the Cultural 00:27:17
Resource Representative for the Esalen tribe. 00:27:22
So they have an apparent conflict of interest in not recommending tribal monitoring, and it would not be appropriate for the 00:27:28
Esalen tribe to monitor In any case. Ocean, which is Aloni, Costano and Eslanation, always wishes to monitor when there is ground 00:27:34
disturbance in an archaeologically sensitive area. The absence of superficial resources does not work against that, and you have 00:27:41
a. 00:27:48
Condition of approval for monitoring So please approve conditions of approval number 234 and 12. 00:27:56
And remove the extraneous conditions. 00:28:02
When when a project is approved here? 00:28:05
Yeah. And please provide tribal monitoring as well as archaeological. 00:28:08
Thank you. 00:28:13
Thank you. 00:28:15
Any additional comments or hands raised? 00:28:18
We have another hands raised. 00:28:22
We will then close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:28:25
Happy start. 00:28:33
I I think the plans look very nice. 00:28:37
I am. I agree with a. 00:28:42
Read the comments from Miss Brown. I also noted that. Really appreciated. 00:28:46
The visually interesting and. 00:28:52
Design and how it's in line with the character of the Pacific Grove retreat. I'd also noticed when I was initially looking at the 00:28:57
plans how it did remind me of the vernacular style and the tent cabins. So I think that's a very nice touch. I think the I think 00:29:02
the plans are great I. 00:29:08
I like how I like how it goes from two stories to one and opens up the. 00:29:16
Opens up the space and. 00:29:22
Viewage from the street. 00:29:24
I do also think that's a great idea to move the driveway to 2nd St. 00:29:28
Thought that was a nice touch as well and I'm supportive of the variance because. 00:29:32
As noted. 00:29:38
It is actually. 00:29:40
You are reduced. We are reducing the current nonconformity not only in terms of distance to the Second Street, but if you look on 00:29:43
that page, a 1.01, you're also just reducing the total length of the. 00:29:50
The project, the home that is currently. 00:29:58
Facing 2nd Street, so I think that's certainly a win and I'm supportive of it. 00:30:01
I do want to note that I certainly appreciate the concerns raised by. 00:30:08
The public regarding. 00:30:13
Losing in Adu housing space here, I think that's a very valid. 00:30:16
Point. 00:30:21
That being said. 00:30:24
I'm not aware of any particular. 00:30:25
Code law mandate. 00:30:28
That prohibits. 00:30:31
A homeowner and property owner from. 00:30:36
From such construction, proposed plans to remove their Adu and if that is their prerogative. 00:30:40
I find it hard to. 00:30:47
Reject the plans on that. 00:30:48
So with that being said, I'm supportive of the plans and project. 00:30:52
Thank you. 00:30:56
All right, Vice chair Boyle. 00:30:58
I second. 00:31:02
Everything that you said, my biggest concern originally was the reduction in in. 00:31:04
In the additional. 00:31:12
Housing, which would hinder arena numbers. 00:31:15
Rather than help them, but I do also think about a lot of the projects that we've seen as of late where people can. 00:31:22
You know add a JADU or an Adu and and then we're having more lot coverage and. 00:31:32
So. 00:31:41
I'm while I'm not thrilled that we have a unit going away, I think it's a. 00:31:43
Better case than than it could be and the fact that they're. 00:31:50
In my opinion, the design is a. 00:31:55
Much more in keeping with. 00:31:59
Are, you know, cute little town and it's vernacular. As you said, I think this is a very tricky lot. 00:32:02
And I just, I think this, I think this this little spot right here, like Miss Dahmer said, this is. 00:32:17
Kind of the entrance to PG. 00:32:28
And this home is going to be more indicative of. 00:32:31
PG then what's there currently? 00:32:37
And it's safer. 00:32:40
So, like you, I'm in favor of the. 00:32:42
Of the project. 00:32:46
I make one that should come before you go, and I just I forgot to also mention with regard to the other public comments. 00:32:51
I'm also supportive of. 00:32:58
The condition to have the trucks, construction trucks coming down central. 00:33:01
I'd like to get. I get. 00:33:07
I suppose a bit more feedback perhaps from the. 00:33:09
Applicants and staff or whomever regarding. 00:33:14
No demolition during the ******* season. I didn't know how the duration of that that was my question Also it wasn't as. 00:33:19
Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that, so I need more information. 00:33:27
Before making that a condition. 00:33:31
My other comments. 00:33:32
And I'm wondering too, I know as Kim had mentioned, I do believe that there is an ordinance, a protection ordinance. I don't know 00:33:34
if that has a radius, you know, and I'm not sure if this falls within that radius, but. 00:33:41
If it does, it would. 00:33:50
Certainly be under the protection that maybe we can ask. 00:33:53
Miss Sanders. 00:33:58
Didn't know existed. Yes. Remember, I know exactly which municipal code section you're referring to. I'm pulling it up right now. 00:34:03
To see if that. 00:34:13
Code section would would cover that without a project specific condition of approval. 00:34:16
While I'm looking that up, I I would need to defer to the applicant in terms of. 00:34:25
Providing more feedback or information on. 00:34:31
Their demolition and construction plans and the timing associated with that based on. 00:34:36
Their path forward in terms of entitlement timing. 00:34:42
All right, while you're looking that up, I'll provide my comments and which might include a question to you I agree with. 00:34:48
Board members that this is, I appreciate it going from seconds or two stories to single story. It is a very kind of irregular lot 00:34:57
and you have to be creative with the layout. 00:35:04
And I did take note about the elimination of an Adu, however. 00:35:12
As evidenced by the other two items on our agenda which are proposing ADUS, I'm not as concerned for this particular project. It 00:35:17
is in a very unique location. It is one of the anchoring sites I. 00:35:24
To the to our city's entrance. And that being said, I think my only comment on the design and I'm just curious if you might 00:35:32
entertain. 00:35:37
If we look at page T 0.02 the view #3. 00:35:43
So I love love the front view with the garage. It does, it's reminiscent of the tent homes, but that is on 2nd and not as visible 00:35:51
entering the town. So I do notice kind of coming around that curve on central, it's apparent that those are secondary windows with 00:36:00
the in the primary bedroom and the bathroom there. 00:36:08
So I have a. 00:36:17
Something in the middle of the screen so I can't see all of the elevations. 00:36:20
So which elevation are you Speaking of? I'm looking at view #3 and it's the east elevation. 00:36:27
OK. That's coming around the curve and from First St. that's coming up from ocean view. 00:36:33
And so that's really the rear view. 00:36:40
Central. Yeah. Coming down Central. 00:36:50
Well, if you're looking at view 3 on the. 00:36:54
Renderings. 00:36:59
That view 3 is coming up from ocean view I see now on 1st St. and that's the rear elevation I see. OK, so let me audit myself a 00:37:01
bit here. So coming in. 00:37:09
And I would just like, while you're looking at that, to make the comment the. 00:37:17
Guest unit that's on the property was not built as an Adu, so it was not under the new state regulations. For ADUS, it was simply 00:37:22
an illegal. 00:37:27
Rental. 00:37:33
Sorry, did it the wrong way. Staff can add a little bit of information regarding the Adu as well. So in the staff report we refute 00:37:40
referred to it as an Adu just because that's now the current terminology that kind of encompasses second units, granny flats, 00:37:48
second cottages, things like that. That's just the known terminology that that we're using these days. 00:37:56
But in this, for this property, this little cottage or secondary building was built, I believe, at the same time as the main home. 00:38:05
All three buildings were built at the same time. 00:38:10
We don't have any evidence that it was ever used as a rental Adu, and it wasn't certainly developed as an Adu under any of the 00:38:16
most recent. 00:38:21
State legislation that was put in place to incentivize or encourage Adu development. 00:38:28
And then finally, This site is not listed on our housing sites inventory. So it's not a site for protected housing or deep 00:38:35
restricted for any affordability levels. 00:38:40
So the removal of this cottage or Adu would not hurt the city in any way in terms of arena numbers or our requirements per the 00:38:47
state. 00:38:52
So it would be the same amount of housing units that would this would this proposed. 00:38:58
Home and the current home, yes. Well, when when we're talking about accommodating our future arena allocations, regional housing 00:39:03
needs allocations. 00:39:08
The city's role in that is only to remove barriers and regulations. 00:39:13
To accommodate that future capacity. So generally it's about having our general plan and our zoning in place so that applicants 00:39:18
could come in and propose higher density housing projects. 00:39:25
It really doesn't affect. 00:39:33
Our single family residential and the ability to make modifications on sites such as this. 00:39:36
Thank you that clarification. 00:39:45
Any other questions? 00:39:50
Thank you for clarifying I. 00:39:52
The view and the render. So that was this. This does go to Planning Commission. 00:39:54
So if there's a radius for the popping season, it could be addressed there. 00:40:00
I had one further question. Actually it's minimus, but I noted on the drawings metal roofing, but I think somewhere around the 00:40:05
plant said composite. What is a, what's the roofing going to be? 00:40:11
I'm sorry, this one. 00:40:18
What's the roofing of the home going to be? It is OK. I noticed somewhere said composite and. 00:40:20
I just didn't know if that was. 00:40:28
An error. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you. 00:40:30
Chair, I was able to review the municipal code. 00:40:35
Regulations or protections for harbor seals and particularly. 00:40:43
Harping harbor seals during pupping season. 00:40:50
The boundary that is typically referred to in the ordinance. 00:40:54
Is limited to Ocean View Blvd. right of way. 00:41:00
So that this property would sort of exceed that? 00:41:06
Informally defined boundary. 00:41:12
Inform us of the duration of this season. 00:41:17
Is that also noted in the code or? 00:41:21
It isn't, and there has been some discussion with regard to. 00:41:24
The duration of pupping season and and wind. 00:41:30
When pupping season is, is. 00:41:35
Generally accepted to be at the at the BNR. 00:41:40
We can provide it, we can do additional research and. 00:41:46
Look back at those discussions at BNRC to. 00:41:51
Determine what an appropriate time frame might be. 00:41:56
Umm, should the Arkansas be recommend? 00:42:01
Something additional condition of approval with regard to. 00:42:05
Demolition during puppy season. 00:42:10
There isn't in Title 14 harbor seal puffing season. It is. 00:42:14
Generally defined as occurring during the months of February through May. So it does spell out and I think that there are ongoing 00:42:22
conversations about more specificity. 00:42:28
With that, but currently with the ordinance, February through May. 00:42:35
Thank you to move and unless anyone has any further comments to make. 00:42:39
And remembering that this is outside of the. 00:42:44
What the ordinance of radius is regulating, Yes, thank you. 00:42:47
All right, we will entertain a motion. 00:42:54
I'll move to forward the architectural permit and variance to the Planning Commission. 00:42:58
With a Recommendation for Approval Subject to the Recommended Findings, Conditions of Approval and Class 3 Categorical Exemption 00:43:03
with the. 00:43:07
Note that should the Planning Commission depending on the timing that it receives, and here's a. 00:43:13
The report and recommendation. 00:43:21
If it decides to make any further. 00:43:24
Conditions of approval. It certainly has the prerogative, and it can do so. 00:43:26
Did we want to make a note to? 00:43:35
The effect of the construction drug trucks driving on Central, I think the, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that. 00:43:41
If that's. 00:43:50
That may be unnecessary depending on when this actually gets spurred by the Planning Commission. So I I I would defer it to the 00:43:51
Planning Commission at that point. Depending on what time they receive and if it's still during the pumpkin season, they can add 00:43:57
that condition of approval or not. 00:44:02
That'd be my recommendation. 00:44:09
Yes. I would add though, the conditions that Miss Sanders brought up, including revisions to the plan set to correct the owners 00:44:10
name, the date of the plan set and eliminate redundancies and the cultural resources conditions. 00:44:17
I would also add to that. 00:44:25
That the. 00:44:29
Plan set Notes Shingle roofing on page A 6.01 which should be modified to standing seam metal roof. 00:44:31
Probably with a. 00:44:40
Sample attached. 00:44:42
All that. 00:44:48
I would second that motion. 00:44:51
All right, A .601 I believe. 00:44:57
Yes, a 6.01. 00:45:05
All in favor. 00:45:13
Aye, aye. 00:45:15
Three eyes 1 absent, 1 vacancy motion passes. 00:45:19
All right. Moving on to agenda item. 00:45:28
Architectural permit AP23-0208 and Coastal development permit CDP 23-0208. 00:45:32
At 127 Forest Ave. 00:45:43
One moment, then we will have a staff report. 00:45:49
If you can give me just a moment, we had a little technical difficulty the onset of the meeting, so I just need to pull up. 00:45:53
The presentation. 00:46:02
Thank you Chair Boyle and. 00:46:46
Sorry. 00:46:50
Vice Chair Boyle and Secretary Brooks I am presenting Architectural Permit 230208 and Coastal Building Permit 230. 00:46:53
223-0208 for 127 Forest Ave. 00:47:03
I'd like to start off by just letting you know that the properties were posted on February 29th and the mailers and postcards went 00:47:09
out at 100 foot radius on February 29th. 00:47:15
And the story polls were erected on the 26th of February and we also verified that the staff verified on the 29th as well. 00:47:21
The existing conditions of this property It's a site of 1912 square foot interior parcel located between 17th and 18th streets. 00:47:35
It's currently mildly developed with a 250 square foot garage slash storage shed. 00:47:43
The site is located in the coastal zone, archaeological zone and the city's area of Special biological significance. 00:47:52
A phase one preliminary archaeological assessment was provided to us. This was done a. 00:48:01
This was part of. 00:48:07
Two parcels that that had been split at 129 forest had gone before the HRC and approved through the Planning Commission. The 00:48:09
reports that were provided through that were the same. It was for both the full lot so that phase one. 00:48:18
Noted that there was number indication of pre contact cultural sites features or artifacts. We do however have a condition of 00:48:29
approval for inadvertent discovery of human remains or cultural artifacts. 00:48:35
The proposal is to remove the 250 square foot garage and the construction of a new three story single family residence. It's 1203 00:48:43
square feet with an attached garage. 00:48:49
And a 729 square foot accessory dwelling unit. 00:48:56
As proposed, the project complies with the zone regulations and development standards set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code 00:49:01
chapters 23.26. That's for the R3 PGR and 23.90. 00:49:08
Coastal implementation plan. 00:49:15
As well as the 23.80 which is the Adu ordinance. 00:49:18
The Post project. 00:49:27
As I said allows a 12103 square foot three story single family dwelling with the attached garage and 729 square foot attached 00:49:30
accessory drawing unit. They have lift almost set back into the main Gable roof that are being utilized to give the appearance 00:49:36
more of an appearance of a of a second story building than 1/3. 00:49:42
The project as proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. 00:49:50
Which is comprised of small medium sized one and two Storey residences of varying architectural styles, alignments and scales. 00:49:53
The proposed project complies with architectural review guidelines 123-424-2930 and 35. 00:50:02
The architectural style, materials and site design are in substantial conformance with the. 00:50:14
Implementation plan for the the Local Coastal program. 00:50:20
Staff's recommendation is that the Architectural Review Board recommend to the Planning Commission to approve Architectural Permit 00:50:31
230208, AP 230208 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 230208 with Findings, Conditions of Approval and Sequel Class 3 Categorical 00:50:39
Exemption for New Structures or Conversion of Small Structures. 00:50:46
And I'm here for questions. 00:50:55
Thank you for that. 00:50:57
I do have a question to start. You mentioned the technical reports associated with a lot merger for 129 Forest. Did they also 00:50:59
conduct A historic resources? 00:51:06
Analysis for the property. 00:51:15
They did. 00:51:17
Again with it was for both property. 00:51:22
I think the only thing that I had in with that report was the initial historic screening. 00:51:26
I assume you're. 00:51:33
Referring to the, the garage shed that was there, yes, Just to understand the relationship between the garage and the home that is 00:51:35
on the. 00:51:40
HRI so the the historic, the phase two historic report. 00:51:45
The Sanborn maps. 00:51:51
Didn't show that garage until after 1926. 00:51:53
And then the the garage was moved from the rear of the property. We don't know if it was demolition demolished and rebuilt, but it 00:52:00
was moved from the rear to the front of the pot property and that is also shown on on some of the map. So I'll let the applicant 00:52:07
speak more about that, but it does a duets. 00:52:14
The I can't speak about the herosity of it, but it doesn't address the the, the. 00:52:22
When it was. 00:52:28
After the original construction and the. 00:52:30
Placement changes. 00:52:34
After that, thank you. Any other questions for staff. 00:52:36
I had the same question. I'd like to see the reports. I think that the HRI report and the archaeological report should be part of 00:52:40
the. 00:52:44
Truth part of this agenda item. So any event, I'm glad. I'm glad there is a report. I expected there to be one, but I was. 00:52:50
I'm disappointed that it that it wasn't part of the actual. 00:52:57
Items. 00:53:01
So the one thing I'll just mention with the archaeological reports. 00:53:03
They're they're confidential reports. So we can report on what we get, we receive, but we can't give that information out and 00:53:08
that's because if they happen to have an affirmative response that there are cultural or significant. 00:53:15
Artifacts on the site it opens up to lending. 00:53:24
And it gives people the location and notification that there's something here. And so people do. 00:53:28
So we. 00:53:33
That's fascinating, but I guess interesting to know and duly noted for for that report. But. 00:53:35
Reiterating the request for the HR island. Basically we wouldn't like the IHS is on there because typically we wouldn't request a. 00:53:41
Historic phase two. 00:53:51
Or something that's not on a historic resources inventory. 00:53:55
Well, I don't know when when we want to get into this, but. 00:54:00
There is an existing phase one for 1:29. 00:54:06
Yes, and at least for 1:29. 00:54:11
It's very clear that the the garage is part of that. 00:54:16
Home. And so it's it would. 00:54:20
I feel unprepared to evaluate the project without having a better understanding of that relationship and and how that. 00:54:23
Works with with this particular project. 00:54:31
OK, I'll let the, I'll let the applicant address that. 00:54:34
No further questions. We will invite the applicant up to speak and you will have 10 minutes. 00:54:39
Hi, I'm this is on right. OK. It's funny because from right here you can't tell whether you're coming over the speakers in 00:54:46
response to the question for that. That garage actually sits half on 1/29 and half on 1/27. So it was approved in the 129 to be 00:54:53
removed. 00:54:59
Just so you know. 00:55:06
Because when, when, because we're actually moving the house on 129 back and closer to that property line and so that that garage 00:55:09
was being removed for that approval of that property. 00:55:15
OK, excellent. Very helpful. All this stuff would be very helpful to have the actual agenda item so that we can be better prepared 00:55:22
to evaluate and comment on it. But thank you. Yeah, so. 00:55:28
Real quickly. 00:55:36
Yes, it is an empty lot right now. 00:55:39
The they're actually building a house and an Adu. They are providing a garage off street parking, which is not required for this 00:55:42
property. 00:55:46
It we are nearly hitting the 30 foot height allowance. 00:55:52
Which there's even though. 00:55:59
There actually are two three foot, three Storey houses across the street on Forest, and there's about 6 houses or so that appear 00:56:02
to be at the 30 foot height limit, at least in in the direct vicinity of this house. 00:56:09
The. 00:56:18
There was a comment at one point, not from you guys, but about the windows on the backside of the house, looking into the 00:56:20
neighbors, the windows at the ground floor. 00:56:26
Feet from the property line and they actually look at a six foot high fence. 00:56:32
And that that's allowed to be 3 feet because that lower part of that house is the Adu. 00:56:38
The windows at the 2nd floor lookout onto a four foot a 5 foot deep. 00:56:44
Mechanical. 00:56:52
Area where they're putting them mechanical units there and it has a solid 42 inch high wall around it, so the windows. 00:56:54
On that, on that second floor lookout, they have a 42 inch high wall 5 feet away from them, so they're really not able to look 00:57:02
down into the neighbors either and then at the third floor. 00:57:07
The third floor set back for this property is 10 feet. We're actually 12 feet where those third floor windows are located. 00:57:13
And they also have a sill plate sill height of about 42 inches so. 00:57:21
The the third floor. 00:57:26
Though yeah, so that that's the that was. I just wanted to address that as far as the Windows go. 00:57:29
Umm the the deck out front is actually a spaced wood deck, so so it is not considered part of the coverage. 00:57:37
And. 00:57:46
That's pretty much so it. Any questions? 00:57:48
I do have a question, a few questions. Could we pull up page a three please? 00:57:54
Thank you. So I'm looking for clarity on the main floor plan. 00:58:07
Is this a two-bedroom? It's a two-bedroom, OK? 00:58:12
So I noticed that there's not a door on the second bedroom noise that labeled Adu Bedroom. There should there should be a door 00:58:16
there. Sorry, missed that. 00:58:21
Thank you for that and. 00:58:27
Will there be internal circulation to the upstairs? I think I've solved it. So you so you enter into this little mudroom esque, go 00:58:33
up the stairs to the second floor. OK, so then everything on the main floor, the bedroom, the two baths. 00:58:42
Is just one unit exactly, exactly. So you have you actually have interior access from the garage to that upper unit as well. 00:58:52
That's why I. 00:58:55
That kind of snakes around the bathroom there. 00:59:00
OK and. 00:59:04
This is kind of more of a comment, but the plan set scope. 00:59:07
And I know that there's been design revisions and iterations calls out plans for a two-story home. 00:59:13
Oh, on your scope. So about that. 00:59:19
Any questions for the architect? 00:59:22
Not yet. I'll wait until we all have comments, and then maybe we can. 00:59:28
Collectively great. 00:59:33
All right. Thank you. 00:59:36
We will now open up public comment. 00:59:38
Is there anybody in the room that wishes to speak? 00:59:42
No online. 00:59:46
We have Lisa Gianni. 00:59:51
Thank you. 00:59:54
So the three-dimensional depictions on the plans show the project floating with no neighboring residences, and it's always helpful 00:59:57
to see it. 01:00:02
In context. In the actual physical context, I know there are story polls. 01:00:07
But it just doesn't help to see if. 01:00:14
Floating structure. 01:00:18
Also, LCP policies CRS six and eight call for protecting the scale and character of PGS retreat and. 01:00:21
I'm I'm not sure that this really. 01:00:31
Really captures that I. 01:00:37
And then finally. 01:00:40
Uh, standard condition is standard inadvertent. Oh my goodness, standard inadvertent conditions of approval. 01:00:42
For for archaeology are not sufficient in an archaeologically sensitive area. I mean that's something you can have in the parts of 01:00:51
PG that. 01:00:56
Aren't in an archaeologically sensitive area, but archaeologically sensitive means there's a likelihood of of uncovering 01:01:02
archaeological resources. 01:01:07
In during ground disturbance. 01:01:15
The absence of superficial evidence of archaeological resources. 01:01:18
Does not does not mean that you shouldn't have. 01:01:22
And monitoring. 01:01:27
For for a project like this and there are already designated archaeological sites nearby on forest and on grand. 01:01:30
So I I would urge you to. 01:01:39
To have a condition of approval for archaeological and tribal monitoring in addition to the standard inadvertent conditions of 01:01:43
approval. 01:01:48
And and that that condition on the last project for. 01:01:54
Training for archaeological sensitivity training. 01:02:03
By a qualified. 01:02:08
Archaeologist. 01:02:10
Prior to construction is also a very helpful. 01:02:13
Conditioned for it. 01:02:18
Protecting Pacific Groves. 01:02:20
Archaeological resources which are significant. 01:02:23
Thank you. 01:02:27
Thank you. 01:02:30
We have no other hands raised. 01:02:35
All right. We will close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 01:02:37
Vice Chair Boyle. Well, I mean, it's an open discussion, right? So. So I have some concerns. This of course, you know, is my. 01:02:44
Be in my bonnet, the hole at an Adu and then we can Max it out And so I of course, I'm not loving. 01:02:56
This. 01:03:06
I I do in general like I mean generalities. I like the architecture. I. 01:03:11
But what's not sitting well with me is the porch. 01:03:19
Situation and deck in the front. 01:03:27
The overall massing. 01:03:33
The project data sheet. Did anybody find it lacking? 01:03:37
It was, yes, missing from the packet, but available online. So I am a paper person. I'm sorry, I'm probably from a different era. 01:03:42
I didn't print it. If you want to reference. Oh, look at that. 01:03:48
So I think you know, in general we need to have a. 01:03:57
Robust conversation about this. 01:04:06
Absolutely support that fully. Umm. 01:04:11
Yeah, I have a lot of comments and questions for this project. 01:04:17
I can. Candidly, I'm not. 01:04:22
I'm not currently in favor of the current product that I can't really find the. 01:04:25
The design a bit boring and dull. I do like the the dormers however. That being said the there is. 01:04:30
I'm not sure if this was intended to be included or not, but on page. 01:04:40
67 of 99 at least. 01:04:44
And what I have, there's a different design. 01:04:46
And one that I actually quite prefer to the current design. It has a dormer facing. 01:04:50
You can only see the. 01:04:57
West and South elevation of it. 01:05:00
It's on the next page. I don't know if you all have it, if you can show it. 01:05:03
I'm not sure if that was some prior iteration. 01:05:09
But it's actually covers materials page, which was a separate attachment, right? And I can see the entrance is different. It looks 01:05:13
like it's entering via the side, not the, you know, it's like a closed. 01:05:20
Right, I agree with you as well. I still don't really appreciate the the deck at the front, but at least this revision it's not 01:05:28
currently on the. 01:05:33
On the screen, but this revision had, you know, variety of. 01:05:38
Different roofs, you know 2 Gables at the front had the nice circular window it it was much more in line with the character of 01:05:43
this street and this neighborhood, which is obviously everyone knows well aware of. Extremely. 01:05:49
Trafficked and special St. in the town. I thought that design was much more in line with the beautiful Queen Anne's opposite to 01:05:55
it, The Painted Lady and. 01:06:01
Daffodil house or whatnot, so. 01:06:07
I thought that I was. I was much more in favor of a sign like this, the current design. 01:06:10
I agree that the massing on both the North and South side, which you do see, it's it's not it's you clearly will see that when 01:06:16
you're walking up and down the street. So it's not like it's hidden from view. I also couldn't see the Eastern. 01:06:23
There isn't a depiction of the Eastern. 01:06:32
Elevation. 01:06:35
In the plans, but not a color depiction, so I thought I. 01:06:37
That that would have been helpful to have. 01:06:41
I wasn't clear on. 01:06:44
Whether there was a. 01:06:46
A deck or in the east elevation or what was going on there because there was some. The windows appear to be. 01:06:48
Underneath some sort of lines, so I wasn't. 01:06:58
Clear what? What that was. So that's a question to be answered. And then I also had concerns at least with the actual. 01:07:02
With the with with the design set because on page. 01:07:13
There on the third floor plan there. 01:07:20
That didn't seem to match. 01:07:24
The actual. 01:07:27
Exterior elevation so the north elevation. It looks like it has these two windows on the. 01:07:29
You know far left and then on the on the right and and that doesn't. 01:07:35
Match what I see on the north elevation on a form. I don't know if I'm missing something there and then similarly actually for the 01:07:38
West elevation. 01:07:43
And the South elevation, all those? 01:07:49
Windows seem to be off for the third. 01:07:51
Floor So. 01:07:55
I actually investigated that with staff and I and the applicant can correct me if I that. I noticed the same thing here that's 01:07:57
open to the living room, so that actually does near the window plan of the second floor. 01:08:04
So if you compare. 01:08:12
These windows to this second floor, yes. 01:08:13
That one matched, but even but the. 01:08:17
But would that? 01:08:21
But it's still. I thought that as well, but it still wouldn't match the. 01:08:23
The West elevation which has just kind of one window on the. 01:08:28
Left turn, left left side. 01:08:33
And then it wouldn't match. 01:08:36
The I don't think it would match the north elevation either. 01:08:38
Even on the 2nd floor and certainly not on the 3rd so. So I don't know that that needs to be cleaned up or or maybe I'm missing 01:08:43
something. I'm not, I'm not sure, but that was. 01:08:47
I couldn't understand that. 01:08:53
Also notice the the Data Seed data sheet although. 01:08:56
Understood if it's was presented online and. 01:08:59
Should be nice to have it in the packet, but I think just most importantly, yeah, I'm. 01:09:03
Certainly all all lots on in PG are very special. 01:09:09
This one on Forest Ave. 01:09:16
Right in the heart of our town. 01:09:18
Obviously has a. 01:09:21
Very high importance I think, and I just wasn't frankly just impressed with the with the drawings, so. 01:09:23
I'll leave it at that. 01:09:30
Yeah, I will kind of echo the same sentiments. I think with everything, context is very important. And on this particular segment 01:09:36
of forest, while the homes are very tall and the setbacks are narrow. 01:09:44
The design style you see most often is Victorian and Craftsman, and they have a lot of those special kind of design elements that 01:09:53
that both mitigate and just. 01:09:58
You know, disguise the size and we'll style kind of reads more like a Cape Cod, but super sized. 01:10:03
And the scale of the the windows. 01:10:12
I don't think it kind of diminishes the size enough. 01:10:16
And yes, just the streetscape. Most of the homes have just very visually interesting design elements. 01:10:23
And I think that there are a few too many windows on the. 01:10:32
I could say, is it the east elevation? 01:10:37
It is the no excuse me the South elevation. I'm not sure you need the window in the garage. 01:10:41
I can appreciate if it's still balance the the. 01:10:48
That elevation, but that it will be bordering the neighbor next door, it just seems like. 01:10:53
That's unnecessary. 01:10:59
So overall, I do think it's a bit large. 01:11:04
For this particular parcel, even though it does meet. 01:11:10
The code with the Adu and I also agreed that. 01:11:15
I kind of preferred the the design offered in the Colors and Materials page. Felt like that was more in line with the streetscape. 01:11:20
And it does appear that you. 01:11:31
Uh have umm. 01:11:35
Opportunities to be more strategic with the layout inside, just with that open space on the third floor. 01:11:37
So I would and just to give it some kind of. 01:11:44
Just my findings, I I don't think it meets a. 01:11:50
The guidelines #27. 01:11:53
To be in scale at the site. 01:11:56
#35 I don't think the facade was similar to the neighborhood context #36. 01:11:58
Don't think the facade adds visual, visual interest. 01:12:05
Read a little boxy from that western. 01:12:09
Facade. 01:12:12
Would you like to ask questions regarding the window arrangement or? 01:12:16
Rebuttal. 01:12:22
Happy if the applicant would like to respond I. 01:12:24
But. 01:12:29
Real briefly, the windows on the east side, what you're seeing that's that equipment well that I was talking about? 01:12:35
That it's it's not a deck, it's a it's a flat area where they're going to put the the mechanical units. 01:12:42
And it's it's screened in by that 42 inch high solid wall. 01:12:48
So those windows are actually looking out. 01:12:52
Into that 5 foot deep mechanical well, let's call it. 01:12:55
And so that's why you're only seeing part of those windows on that eastern elevation. 01:13:01
On that second floor. 01:13:06
Forgive my ignorance. I'm sorry. I don't. I don't understand that. So we're First off, can we get to the right page? So we're on. 01:13:11
If you look at a three, the plan, OK. 01:13:20
So what? So the you you see the bedrooms on the 2nd floor plan? 01:13:24
I do OK, so the the the rectangle, those single line rectangle that's on the backside of that. 01:13:33
That that's to the to the right side of that which would be the eastern end side of that is actually the where they're going to be 01:13:41
putting the mechanical equipment and that has a 42 inch high solid wall around it. 01:13:47
Got it. OK. So you, OK, you were addressing the quote UN quote deck on the second step, correct. Got it, got it. That makes sense. 01:13:53
Understood. And then as far as the the, the windows on the third floor, so basically. 01:14:00
The the windows that you're seeing on the elevation and on the 3D plans on that third floor are actually clear story windows in 01:14:09
the living room. 01:14:13
OK, so they're not. It's not. 01:14:22
I didn't show them on that plan because that's just open to the living room there. It's it's not floor area up there. 01:14:25
Really well illustrated on a three building section A. 01:14:39
That's where it's really well illustrated, yeah. So if you look at building section A. 01:14:46
The. 01:14:52
A three. There we go. 01:14:54
The the left side of that third is the third floor plan where the bedroom and the bathroom are. 01:14:56
And the right side is just the dormer. 01:15:01
That was open to the living room down below. OK, so the living room in the second story goes all the way up to the third story. I 01:15:04
understood. Correct. Got it. Got it. 01:15:09
Thank you. Yeah. And that's what kind of the foundation for my comment that you could be more strategic with that interior? 01:15:14
Space I believe. 01:15:22
So and as far as your comment about the, yes that was a redesign, it had to do with floor areas etcetera, etcetera that that. 01:15:25
Yeah, yeah. Walk us through that. What? So what what happened was is a couple of things. One. 01:15:34
The. 01:15:41
The owner the owner of this property, one of the owners of this property actually owns the property is at 131. Is that your 01:15:43
address? 01:15:47
133 and they also owe one own 129, but anyway. 01:15:52
At 1:33 when the when we first staked the original design which had the Gable facing front. 01:15:56
It was blocking. 01:16:04
A portion of 133 S view. 01:16:05
Of the ocean. 01:16:09
So we we looked at redesigning and we felt that lowering the the visual height. 01:16:11
At the street. 01:16:20
Level to that two-story height and and changing the the. 01:16:22
The Gable to be. 01:16:27
An East West Gable and seven north-south Gable. 01:16:30
Then it. 01:16:34
It took care it. 01:16:36
Mitigated the. 01:16:40
Viewing. 01:16:44
Disturbance for 1:33 and then also felt like it helped to reduce the scale of the house from the street. 01:16:45
Was there a through the chair? 01:16:57
Was there A and? 01:16:59
I'm not an architect, so OK a hip. 01:17:02
Roof. Was there ever a? 01:17:05
And we did not. We did not explore a hip roof, the only reason why I'm suggesting that. And then maybe you have a Gable off the. 01:17:09
Rear right? Is maybe that doing a hip on the front would reduce the massing, but I know then you're gonna you're gonna lose some 01:17:20
of that openness to the living below, right? 01:17:26
And well, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but also the, the, the ability to have that third floor space on the backside, right? Yeah, 01:17:33
that's your job, I know. 01:17:39
But anyway, yes, we did not explore Hip Roof. Yeah, OK. 01:17:49
And what was the height of the previous? The same? It was the same height. 01:17:54
Through the chair. My assumption is the reason why you can't have that enclosed front porch is because of lot coverage, correct? 01:17:59
Yeah. 01:18:04
Yeah, we had, we were OK as far as far, but the lot coverage was an issue. 01:18:13
Because we really wanted it. 01:18:21
And as far as the overall lot coverage, because of the way the the the main house sits over the Adu. 01:18:30
The only part of the Adu that isn't counted in the lot coverage is the 5 foot section to the back. 01:18:39
Just to clarify, with staff to exceed the lot coverage, that would be a variance application. 01:18:48
We'd have to make or they'd have to make the findings to be finding that. I'm not sure that we would be able to support that. 01:18:56
Thank you. 01:19:04
And that second floor deck is really where the view for that second floor is from. 01:19:11
Yes, that's pretty obvious that you would like to maintain that idea, yeah. 01:19:15
OK. Yeah. 01:19:23
Any other questions? 01:19:24
Hello, thank you. 01:19:33
Do you guys see that depth of the? 01:19:43
Garage. 01:19:48
The 20. 01:19:50
Thinking if we could. 01:19:57
Steal some space from that, but we can't. 01:19:59
And in this zoning is 1 covered parking space required. 01:20:05
Due to the size of the lot, there are no parking, no off street parking spaces required for this. 01:20:13
OK, so to me it seems like there is room to play with. 01:20:18
And I can appreciate the. 01:20:26
Efforts, the design efforts and to configuring. 01:20:29
This mini. 01:20:34
Rooms into this size lot and as noted, you know the street is very dense. It's not. I don't think it's the. 01:20:36
This size per SE I. 01:20:46
That we necessarily have issues with, but more kind of the design and the. 01:20:49
The layout. 01:20:54
And yes, I just think the design on 1/27 or the on the colors materials page, it just seems more successful and. 01:20:56
And the trade off of 133? 01:21:11
Losing a portion of their view. I mean that that could be evaluated, but. 01:21:14
I think the trade off on design is. 01:21:19
Yeah, I'm not sure. 01:21:26
That can be supported. 01:21:27
I'll just follow up and echo the chairs comments with regards to the. 01:21:32
Design guidelines, the review guidelines. So I agree with those as well and just reiterate the prior comments that I've said I 01:21:39
can't be supportive of the current plans and I would like to when we see these again. 01:21:46
Just to reiterate that that I would like to see the HR HRI report. 01:21:55
Kind of better understand. 01:22:01
Context there. 01:22:03
Through the chair, do we even have the opportunity to see them again? 01:22:06
There are two ways to go through with this. One is to if the applicant. 01:22:13
Wanted to make changes. 01:22:19
You can continue this to. 01:22:22
Either a date certain or or another date. The other option is the so if you were to deny it or recommend denial, they can go 01:22:25
straight to PC and and it could be seen through them. So it really could be a conversation between you and the applicant and what 01:22:33
they're willing to do and what if they would like to continue to to work on the design. 01:22:42
If I may, if you could give them clear direction as to what you're looking for, that would be. 01:22:52
Useful. 01:22:59
Well, umm. 01:23:02
So I agree with that initial comment that I'm certainly happy to hear from the applicant in terms of of. 01:23:07
If they have a preference one way or the other. 01:23:13
In terms of clear direction, I think. 01:23:17
I think the. 01:23:20
Board has provided. 01:23:23
Ample comment. It's not for the board to design the project and. 01:23:25
Certainly, I defer to an architect to do so. So happy to, yeah, reiterate our prior concerns. But yeah, I'm not gonna list out 01:23:32
exactly kind of what we think. That's not where I was. I mean, I think, I think with with. 01:23:39
If your issues are bulk, the one thing you did do is point to another design. 01:23:48
So you do have. 01:23:55
Something for them to go on and I think listing again the guidelines that you don't feel they're meeting. 01:23:58
Can be clear. I'm just saying is moving forward give them those guidelines so that they can refer to those. 01:24:06
I would be in favor of continuing. Umm. 01:24:12
If. 01:24:16
You care to ask the applicant if that is something that they would be willing to do and and. 01:24:18
I think. 01:24:25
Noting you know we're not, we aren't redesigning, but we do have very clear I think amongst. 01:24:26
Us We have pretty clear. Umm. 01:24:33
Desires and can note those architectural guidelines. 01:24:37
I would defer to you chair as to if you would like to ask them if they would like a. 01:24:44
Date certain or I. 01:24:52
I suppose if we don't do it certain we need to think about the re noticing. That's my comment. Thank you. 01:24:56
I'll invite the applicant back up. 01:25:06
We're actually building our retirement homes next door to each other. We've been ready since kindergarten. 01:25:22
That's what this is. This is. 01:25:28
All three of the properties are somewhat in conjunction with. 01:25:30
So I understood you correctly, it's. 01:25:34
Basically, standing at the street, you kind of don't like the shed dormer that sits up kind of flat. 01:25:37
Right. You like the Gables before? 01:25:42
Correct. That's one element. We do want that to be recessed back a little bit anyways, and if we change the shape of the dormer. 01:25:44
Either two like cable ones or something like that. It could look a little bit better. 01:25:52
I believe, not sure. 01:25:57
Exactly what you're looking for, twisting the roof and doing the Gables. 01:26:01
It's another difficulty for us getting up to the third floor. 01:26:05
So we do kind of want to keep that. 01:26:08
That's I guess we want to keep the roof line as it is, how we address the windows, whether it's a shed dormer. 01:26:11
Or a type of hit or Gable. 01:26:19
That doesn't really matter. 01:26:22
No, it's a clear story. So we just want to get that light into that room. So just being a shadow was more to just mimic what we 01:26:24
had done in the back to be able to create that room. 01:26:28
Yeah. And they don't disagree with that strategy. I just think for this particular segment of the Street, it just. 01:26:35
Isn't as congruent with the other homes in the area. 01:26:41
Now it's been a dormer coming out or a coming out, Yes, I think. 01:26:51
Right across the street, the 2nd house and. 01:26:59
Has that exact detail. 01:27:02
A little balcony affair, in fact, so. 01:27:04
And I think you can see that, Yeah. Yes, I I did notice that actually it almost looks like a four Plex. Is that the one? Yeah. 01:27:08
That's a that's a single family. Oh, OK. 01:27:16
Oh, I might be looking at the one she's talking about. The. 01:27:20
Like the Victorian style? 01:27:24
I think regardless it just like I mentioned, you know, just with the. 01:27:28
The age of the homes across the street, that just offers more kind of visual interest. Those were built in the 80s. 01:27:33
Implied the other Victorian and Craftsman that are a. 01:27:43
Further up the street a little bit, are we looking at the render on page beside the the image on page A5? 01:27:47
Is the home you're talking about on this? 01:28:01
Yes, that is a newer that is those are newer homes. 01:28:05
Non historical. 01:28:11
Done in a very nice historic style. 01:28:13
Yeah. I look at those houses. I appreciate that. Yeah. 01:28:17
Yes, I do think that there is some opportunity with the the floor space inside. 01:28:23
Maybe to reconfigure if you have that open and I appreciate the need for light. 01:28:29
The only interior floor space that we really have would be the garage. 01:28:40
Yes, so. 01:28:46
The second, that other force, pretty much that clear story, part of it's our stairwell going up like that and pretty difficult to 01:28:47
put something in there in the front of it. 01:28:51
Yeah, I think. 01:28:57
Just seeing what could have been on this Colors and Materials page was just too tempting. That's. 01:28:59
If we had to. 01:29:07
Articulate. 01:29:09
What we'd like to see. 01:29:11
I guess I would just want to understand better, you know, how much over was this design square footage wise? 01:29:15
I just wish we were evaluating this design I. 01:29:22
Yes, about 100, about 100 feet for the front room. 01:29:27
I mean, I'll just add that with that design, which, yeah, again, that's. 01:29:33
It's double edged sword that that was in the actual plan set, but I'm thankful that it was with with the dormer for instance on 01:29:39
the. 01:29:43
South elevation to me what was just immediately noticeable there is that it just breaks up the huge massing there, right. I mean 01:29:48
like instead of having these the the North and South face is just being these one large three story mass you know you have some 01:29:54
variety of of. 01:29:59
Roofing and it gives some depth and character and and I don't know the ages of the painted lady or the other you know gorgeous 01:30:05
Queen Anne's on the on that street. But as the chair mentioned you know there there's certainly more in line with the character of 01:30:12
the retreat and and I think something we would love to see try emulated and replicated to some degree not to say that has 01:30:19
obviously been the same but. 01:30:26
Again, you know, I feel you know. 01:30:35
It's not it's not the it's not our place to you know kind of go in a back and forth to try to redesign it right now with you all 01:30:39
that that's for you all and your architect but. 01:30:44
But having but having an idea of what you guys are looking for. I think that idea was I think that's been I think that's been 01:30:52
explicitly stated you know at nauseam almost and you know we provided the the various guidelines that that we think have. 01:31:00
Have not been met. 01:31:08
I think we should continue to visit, yeah, I'd rather. Does that work for you? 01:31:24
Pardon second. 01:31:31
Continue to date uncertain or I. 01:31:34
I guess that would be depending on the through the chair if I might ask. I can't remember off the top of my head. One needs to be 01:31:39
re noticed and one doesn't. Is that correct? 01:31:44
That's correct. The date certain does not need to be re noticed. 01:31:51
Date. Date Uncertain does. So I suppose we should ask the architect if a redesign could be done within AX number, you know, do ask 01:31:54
him if he wants to come back in two months just to give him enough time. 01:32:02
Bill again, the architect. 01:32:17
So just I just so I know. 01:32:20
We need to have drawings done two weeks before the meeting. When do the drawings need to be done by for whatever meeting we go to? 01:32:22
Yeah. Well, it's generally about 3 weeks ahead because we have to do a staff analysis, provide the staff report and updated staff 01:32:30
report and permit, OK. And then we published the packet a week ahead of the meeting, OK. So if we're looking at. 01:32:39
The April. 01:32:49
April ARB would be on April 9th. 01:32:52
So you would literally have to turn plans around in one week? 01:32:56
For April. 01:32:59
If you want to continue to the may ARB. 01:33:00
Then you then you would have a little more time to prepare the plans. Yeah, I don't, I don't think we could do it and we. 01:33:05
Do you guys, that would be up to you. 01:33:14
OK. 01:33:18
Because it'll be, you know, updating your plans, but also providing your responses and how you've addressed the the board's 01:33:20
concerns. Right, right, right. 01:33:25
Yes. 01:33:31
I would say because if we change the cable, whatever, it would need to be resaked, yes. 01:33:33
Through the chair. If the design is going to change, you definitely would have to re. 01:33:40
Restake the property. 01:33:46
If they're. 01:33:48
Switching everything up because the the idea of that is to show and keeping in mind that noticing. 01:33:50
Our legal requirements. 01:33:57
Story polls are are a policy. 01:34:00
So the noticing has everything to do with what we're required to do for these for public hearings. 01:34:03
And then the the story polls. 01:34:10
Is so that we can inform the public of what? 01:34:12
An idea of what's going to be going. 01:34:15
All right, through the chair. I I guess I'm mistaken. I was thinking that if it's like, let's say that the massing is being 01:34:26
reduced, it still needs to be. 01:34:31
Reflagged. 01:34:36
Yeah, who knows? 01:34:40
In response, I think we would need to go to the to the, not the April meeting, but the May meeting. And just to note too, we did 01:34:42
receive public comment from the neighbor. I think it was the easterly neighbor. 01:34:48
That had concerns about kind of light impacts and privacy impacts. But we also do understand the context of this neighborhood. 01:34:56
It's very dense. You know, the the setbacks are narrow. You can't. 01:35:02
You know, mitigate everything. So, so which is one reason why we have that 42 inch high at the 2nd floor, yes, to help mitigate 01:35:09
that, but anyway just so you're aware of that. 01:35:14
You made mention of the garage and possibly. 01:35:23
Doing away with that, we think it's really important to have covered parking and uncovered parking. 01:35:27
Because there's such a congestion there with. 01:35:34
Yes, you're right about that. I was just trying to offer maybe as a strategy for. 01:35:37
For rearranging some of the the. 01:35:43
Yeah, the footprint if you had to. 01:35:46
If you had to, yeah, so. 01:35:48
But yes, garages are a luxury around here, so. 01:35:50
Yeah. Thank you for your understanding. Thank you. 01:35:56
So do we need a motion to continue? We do, and I would say that whoever makes the motion would need to. 01:36:00
Add yeah, some some. 01:36:09
Good guidance for the record. 01:36:13
I think I'll go ahead and try to make a motion here to continue this item to our May agenda. 01:36:26
Noting that we would like to see better adherence to guidelines. 01:36:35
#27 01:36:42
35. 01:36:44
36. 01:36:46
And #2. 01:36:51
And number six, I can talk through those briefly if you like. So #2 being. 01:36:54
The roof line being compatible with the neighborhood, so we mentioned having the gabbled roof lines. 01:37:02
Closing the street. 01:37:08
Number six windows, respecting privacy of the neighbors, kind of. Specifically the windows in the garage. But if you're living 01:37:13
next door to your friend, would it not be? I can see it. 01:37:19
OK #27 scale with the site. 01:37:26
Again, it does meet the ordinances and the zoning with the Adu. 01:37:33
Although I think what we've discussed is just the the overall visual makes it appear a bit larger with that shed dormer in front. 01:37:41
#35 is in regards to the facade being similar to the neighborhood context. 01:37:51
So I think just adding some more of those visually interest interesting. 01:37:57
Dimensions and articulations of the front facade will make it more successful. 01:38:03
And #36. 01:38:10
It's kind of similar to 35, but just the facade having a visual interest. 01:38:13
I'd also add guideline. 01:38:21
And #1. 01:38:25
And #1 of just being the mass and height of a building should blend well with neighboring structures and not overwhelm them or be 01:38:39
disproportionate size. 01:38:43
Or design that out of character. 01:38:48
Maybe a friendly amendment would be that we note. 01:38:52
This page. 01:38:57
In terms of referencing. 01:39:02
Terms of our general, yes, our general guidance would be to reference Page 67 of 99 of the. 01:39:04
Agenda packet with the colors. 01:39:15
And materials page from the previous iteration. 01:39:18
Is a preferred design. 01:39:22
I would second that. 01:39:30
And I don't know if it needs to be mentioned, but we could also have that HRI report. 01:39:34
I can provide that the chair, if you don't mind that it was to be demolished through the other permit, so I could provide that 01:39:40
instead of the HRA report because I don't think that you would be able to. 01:39:45
Reference that in terms of yeah, just just to let you. 01:39:52
It was referenced that it was already approved for demolition. 01:39:55
OK. All in favor. 01:40:01
Aye, aye. 01:40:04
And we have. Do we need a roll call? No. 01:40:07
OK. Thank you. 01:40:10
Moving on to agenda, Item C, architectural permit. 01:40:15
And administrative use permit and tree permit with development #23-0229. 01:40:21
For 1:48 and 10:50 Benito Ave. 01:40:28
May we have the staff report? 01:40:32
Thank you, Chair Bornstein. 01:40:34
And members of the Architectural Reborn. This is 1048 and 1050 Bonito Ave. Architectural Permanent Administrative Use Permit Entry 01:40:38
Permit with Development application #23-0229. 01:40:44
Again, the property was posted. 01:40:52
For hearing on March 1st 2024, the mailers went out on March 1st 2024 to 300 foot radius and it was confirmed that the story polls 01:40:57
were installed March 1st 2024. 01:41:04
The project site is composed of two contiguous properties, 1048 and 1050 Bonito Ave. The 1048 Benito Ave. parcel is a 5133 square 01:41:12
foot interior parcel. 01:41:19
Located on the northwest side of Benito Ave. and is currently developed with a 1756 square foot, two Storey single family 01:41:27
residence. 01:41:31
The 1050 Billion Ave. parcel is a 4802 square foot wedge shaped interior parcel on the northwest side of Benito Ave. and is 01:41:36
currently developed with a 2476 square foot two-story single family residence. 01:41:44
The proposed project is a demolition of the single family residence at 10:48 Benito Ave. 01:41:52
They're then seeking a lot merger and a new addition to be built on 1050 Bonito Ave. which would be 1693 square feet with an 01:41:58
attached garage and a 701 square foot accessory dwelling unit. I'd like to point out that this is a. 01:42:06
There are a lot of conditions placed on this. This permit the lot merger being the one main condition which is if if the. 01:42:16
There. Well. 01:42:27
The LOT merger has to be approved to be able to continue with the project that's being proposed for the architectural permit for 01:42:29
the LOT merger to be approved and I'll get into that in a minute. We have to approve the administrative use permit. 01:42:37
So with the administrative use permit, what are we doing? What are we using it for? It's the 20% totaling of the side yards per 01:42:53
PGMC 23.16 point 060 B one. It's basically the side yard exception. Typical R1 side yard setbacks is 10% of the lot width. Lot 01:43:01
width is measured from the width of the lot from the street. 01:43:08
In the case of totaling of side yards, you can the the exception is that you can shift those those side yards. It allows for 01:43:17
flexibility of the side yard setbacks. 01:43:23
The code accepts it to go down to three feet. 01:43:30
But we cannot require anymore than 10 feet. 01:43:33
When the lots are merged the the lot width will be at 110 feet. 01:43:36
That would put the if the regular 10% would would be 1010 feet because we can't go over 10. With 20% it would be we'd say it'd be 01:43:43
20 feet. However, in this case we have an existing condition at 1050 Veneto and that existed because that house is not being 01:43:51
removed. It has a 6 1/2 foot legal side yard set back currently legal. 01:43:59
The administrative use permit, what that would allow is for us to reduce that side yard for the 20%. 01:44:08
You may wonder why we don't have to go up to the 14 feet on the other side. And the reason being there is that we can't require 01:44:15
more than 10 feet. So with the the point being is that we can. 01:44:21
We have flexibility to to reduce the side yard setbacks. 01:44:28
In this case. 01:44:34
It doesn't change the existing. 01:44:35
Side yard set back and it also because of that there are no adverse effects and it meets the intent of being able to be flexible 01:44:37
with our with our setbacks. The other thing to keep in mind is that. 01:44:43
We don't have many sites that are actually this wide in the city, so this this would create a larger a larger site. 01:44:49
Staff's recommendation is that the Architectural Review Board approved the Architectural Permit and Administrative Use Permit with 01:44:59
the Findings, Conditions of Approval and Sequel Class 1 Categorical Exemption for Existing facilities and if you have any 01:45:04
questions. 01:45:09
I'm here. 01:45:15
Any questions? 01:45:16
I'll just say thank you, Aaron. This is a kind of. 01:45:20
Complex analysis and for providing a solution to the applicants, this is. 01:45:24
This time, then, we will. 01:45:31
Invite the owner or applicant up if you'd like to make a presentation. 01:45:35
You will have 10 minutes. 01:45:39
Good afternoon, board members. My name is Anthony Davie. I'm legal counsel for the owners who are here in the back, but the 01:45:48
architect, I believe Aaron's going to. 01:45:53
Pull up will give you probably a brief. 01:45:58
Uh, presentation via zoom. 01:46:00
Great. Thank you. 01:46:02
Sorry, Mr. Zerbe, you may go ahead and speak. 01:46:08
I think he's muted Mr. Zerbe. 01:46:21
Can you hear me now? 01:46:25
Yes, OK, great. Thank you. Thanks for that detailed explanation. As mentioned, this application is for a proposed LOT merger. The 01:46:26
lot merger would allow in addition to the existing home at 10:50 bonito to support aging in place for my clients. 01:46:34
The proposed addition includes a bedroom, bathroom and garage on the upper level and an Adu on the lower level. 01:46:43
With regards to contextual design. 01:46:50
I designed the original home at 10:50 Bonito, which was approved by the ARB in 2013. 01:46:53
And designed for this new addition matches the size scale. 01:47:01
Materials palette of the existing home. 01:47:06
That also meets the requirements for height limits, gross floor area, building coverage, site coverage and parking. 01:47:08
And with that, I'm glad to answer any questions. 01:47:15
Thank you. 01:47:22
I do have a question to start us off. If we could please display page number A10 four the main level plan. 01:47:24
My question is regarding the. 01:47:41
Circulation of the Adu I see. 01:47:46
The elevator. Our entrance to the elevator there. A doorway. 01:47:50
Which I'm presuming leads to the main level. Will there be internal circulation to the Adu? 01:47:57
The internal circulation is is the elevator and then the the Adu tenant access would be from the exterior stair that's on the 01:48:07
north side of the home that leads to an exterior door. 01:48:12
Specific to EU. 01:48:19
OK. So there is interior circulation or access to? 01:48:23
The elevator, yes. 01:48:27
OK. 01:48:29
Any questions for the architect or? 01:48:36
Here's I'll ask staff, is that allowed for the Adu to have internal circulation? 01:48:40
So in certain cases when we have full circulation like an open stairwell, we would say no, it's part of, it's part of the 01:48:47
addition. In this case, and I would like to, I mean. 01:48:52
Have a little bit more clarification to see. 01:49:00
Adus are also. 01:49:04
Used for family. 01:49:07
In laws, anyone? And so if it is. 01:49:09
Intended for the use. 01:49:13
Of someone like that, so we we can. I don't think that there isn't anything that we can. 01:49:16
Directly prohibit. 01:49:21
Saying because it doesn't give the appearance or isn't the direct circulation of. 01:49:23
Of like like a stairwell or an open open way or open door or just oftentimes we see where someone will put a a stairwell in and 01:49:31
just a door to with a lock on it and they say Oh yeah, you know this is AADU when they're really using the Adu ordinance to get an 01:49:38
addition. In this case, you know, I think that it's a good question to pose toward the applicant and the purpose of it. 01:49:45
Thank you for that, Mister Zerbe. Would you like to speak to the kind of the? 01:49:53
Design intent. 01:49:59
Sure. Do you? Yeah, sure. It's simply aging in place. 01:50:00
You know the. 01:50:06
That gives the clients the ability to have a caretaker in the future if they need. 01:50:08
And we we did look at an interior stair. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed. 01:50:14
So I'm glad we went with the elevator. 01:50:19
But yeah, that that's the intent is aging in place. 01:50:21
So thank you for that. This was just one of my questions and to follow up on that as well it was. 01:50:29
And just want to make sure I'm understanding. Yeah, my understanding was that the Adu had to be completely. 01:50:35
Separate and siphoned from the main whole. 01:50:42
So is that and I wasn't aware of any, you know, I'm not aware of any. 01:50:45
And and you know, kind of work around there, but so there's no. 01:50:52
Let's take let's start with AJU. For example, Jadus are allowed to have. 01:51:01
Shared facilities, meaning the toilets or. 01:51:07
Or kitchens. 01:51:11
There, I believe that it was changed in the new. 01:51:13
Code Update the Adu ordinance. 01:51:17
Actually had a specific no interior circulation. 01:51:21
And that was removed my. 01:51:26
Assumption is that and I can go back to look at the. 01:51:29
Regulations on that. 01:51:33
Um, it was probably. 01:51:37
Because when we when we update our ad ordinance, it's to to meet state guidelines. 01:51:39
So it did like the the. 01:51:46
Part of the ordinance that said you could get a second story through. 01:51:50
An architectural permit. 01:51:54
That's gone. We have, you know, at the 18 feet. So there are certain things that have been removed and that was one of them that 01:51:55
weird defined. 01:51:59
No circulation. 01:52:04
There are instances when we will get a an application. 01:52:08
Where someone says, well, here's a second story. 01:52:13
I'm gonna throw in a kitchen. 01:52:18
We'll throw in a bathroom. I'm gonna call him Native. 01:52:19
It's not, it's clearly. 01:52:24
The second story. 01:52:27
And in some cases like this, when we do think are we having? 01:52:30
Members of the family or someone living in the space. 01:52:36
Can can can we have an access like this that would allow for for that and that's? 01:52:42
Let me ask you this if I may. 01:52:49
Does this does this need to be classified as an Adu if this wasn't classified as an Adu and if it was just you know? 01:52:52
Would. 01:52:58
Be in conform and would still conform with all. 01:53:00
That would be over in the gross floor area and I don't think you can have two. 01:53:04
Pigeons. 01:53:10
Two kitchens and a home. That's another ordinance that may have been an old one that, but I will speak to that. I actually did. 01:53:15
Look at the ordinance and the state ordinance and and the. 01:53:24
Almost over there, the little Groves ordinance and it's not explicit. I do believe there's building codes that require fire rated 01:53:28
doors in between. But I think as we are all learning that the Adu laws keep getting more relaxed as time goes on. So I did not see 01:53:36
and that's kind of what precipitated my question. I didn't see an explicit call out that it had to be. 01:53:43
Closed off. 01:53:51
Plane of order. I wonder if we're getting ahead of ourselves because we're still in the area of the applicants time and we are not 01:53:53
in a discussion. Thank you for that. Yes, I did want clarity from the applicant on the elevator, an intent for the Adu. So I think 01:54:00
we've covered that so we can. 01:54:06
If the applicant is done presenting, we can yeah, I didn't have anything else, but yeah, I'm glad to answer any questions. 01:54:14
Thank you. Thank you. 01:54:21
All right, we can open public comment. 01:54:25
For this item, is there anyone? 01:54:28
Please come to the podium. 01:54:31
As a as a neighbor, are you not going to show what this is going to look like and discuss how it fits in with the neighborhood 01:54:43
like you did with the previous people? Are there pictures of what it's going to look like? 01:54:49
And the plan set for renders. 01:54:57
Yes, yeah. 01:55:01
Well, can you put that up? 01:55:03
The the past, the other two, you did that. 01:55:05
That's all I wanted. I wanted to see that. 01:55:10
Thank you. 01:55:12
OK. Seeing no. 01:55:17
Hands raised. 01:55:22
I think we can close public comment and bring it back to the board. 01:55:23
Just through the chair, just to address that comment, we're still in public comment at this stage and so we we we're not 01:55:30
currently. 01:55:34
Having a. 01:55:38
With the board members, I think that's maybe to hopefully address your concern there or comment. 01:55:40
OK. Bringing it back to the board for discussion. 01:55:57
Happy to start off I. 01:56:10
Well, I think the first thing. 01:56:12
We have to discuss right is is. 01:56:14
The AUP. 01:56:17
And if I suppose if we're all in agreement of that, then we can. 01:56:19
Should move on to. 01:56:25
It's a fuller discussion of the actual. 01:56:26
Project I. 01:56:29
I agree. 01:56:30
As I understand Staffs. 01:56:32
Presentation and I'm in agreement with it and think it's reasonable and makes sense to me so. 01:56:35
I would. 01:56:41
I'm in favor of of the lot merger and approving the the AUP and and moving forward and then I think. 01:56:44
Yeah. So I'll, I'll leave it there and see what you all think on that and then we can take it from there if that makes sense. 01:56:50
I would agree. 01:56:57
Yeah, I do support the findings and the analysis for the. 01:56:58
Great for that. 01:57:03
The other thing that I think we haven't touched upon yet was the true removal. Until maybe we can address that. 01:57:04
First, umm uh. 01:57:13
You know, I'm I'm. 01:57:15
I'm always reluctant to to remove any any of our entity in the town. I did when I did stop by the home. It does seem that the the 01:57:19
trees. 01:57:24
Relatively small and that there is sufficient other live oaks around, another canopy around, so I was personally comfortable. 01:57:30
With the removal. 01:57:41
And granting the the tree permit there and. 01:57:43
Maybe, if that makes sense, we could. 01:57:46
Walk through that next point first. 01:57:47
I agree and if staff wants to weigh in on the tree, permit that there will be a replanting. 01:57:50
Condition those are any. Anytime the protected trees are removed, they are required to replace. 01:57:57
So there will be a replacement of those trees. 01:58:04
Thank you. Or will be part of the condition. 01:58:07
But I I agree. But one in particular. In front of the garage it almost looked like a seedling that just it just was never pulled 01:58:10
out and did not look very intentional. 01:58:15
Yeah, it also just seemed. 01:58:20
It seemed it would seem very difficult to. 01:58:23
To rearrange the home. Probably not that it can be done, but um. 01:58:27
To accommodate the the country so so in any event I was in. 01:58:31
I have no problem with that. 01:58:38
As long as my colleagues are in agreement, I'm happy to continue on. 01:58:41
My other. 01:58:45
Agreed. Great. I I love the design. I I think the design is beautiful. I think the original home design is gorgeous. I think the 01:58:47
addition looks striking. Personally, I think it's been it looks excellent. 01:58:54
And the really the only main comment I had was was kind of the one we. 01:59:03
Had previously discussed with respect to. 01:59:09
My ignorance in terms of the. 01:59:11
The Adu and the requirement there in terms of there needs to be completely siloed or not, so I'll defer to staff on that. 01:59:14
But otherwise. 01:59:21
I really, I really like the plans and and would be supportive of them. 01:59:23
Thank you. 01:59:30
I agree. I think, I think the plans are really beautiful. I'm wondering, I mean, you guys know my stance on Adus and it's no 01:59:34
secret, I. 01:59:40
But when it comes to like interior. 01:59:47
Flow and everything, even though we do and are given the. 01:59:52
Floor plans. 01:59:57
And I don't know if. 02:00:00
I don't know if it's valid or not, but it seems like really our jurisdiction is to look at the. 02:00:02
Structure. 02:00:08
Even though it's hard. 02:00:12
Not to go on the inside and and take a look at things, but. 02:00:15
From the outside. 02:00:21
I really. 02:00:24
Quite. Love this. 02:00:26
Object, I just think it's. 02:00:28
Absolutely stunning. 02:00:30
And the and the the eBay that I mean. 02:00:34
The materials chosen, I just. I can really. 02:00:38
From a design aspect, I can really appreciate this. 02:00:43
I'll just add another thing to that, just just. 02:00:47
Sparked another thought in my head, but I do also love how it is built in into the actual hill and just kind of melds into it and 02:00:50
so it's just. 02:00:55
I think it works very well, especially again with those colors, with the actual surroundings, it's. 02:01:01
It's a lovely project. 02:01:06
Yes, I agree I. 02:01:08
And I I'm assuming that was kind of the design intent all along the way. The 1st house was built and I appreciate again, context 02:01:11
is everything. This is kind of a downslope. You are not interrupting anybodies view. You yourself have a beautiful view. 02:01:19
It just really works with the site I think, and we did not receive any public comment. 02:01:29
Stating otherwise, it's very kind of strategic. 02:01:38
Sighting of the of the home and to speak to the Adu and the kind of the internal circulation potential with the elevator in terms 02:01:43
of aging in place and maybe having a caretaker's. 02:01:48
I I couldn't support that. And yeah, just just really, really beautiful. 02:01:56
I'd like to make a motion. 02:02:03
I would. 02:02:06
Move to. 02:02:08
Let me get to my right page. Just a second. 02:02:12
I would move that we approve. 02:02:16
Architectural permit, Administrative use permit, and tree permit with development. 02:02:21
Permit #23-0229. 02:02:33
Subject to findings, conditions of approval, and seafood guidelines. 02:02:37
As admitted. 02:02:43
One second. 02:02:46
All in favor. 02:02:47
Aye. 02:02:49
Aye, all right. 02:02:51
Thank you. 02:02:54
Let's see with that. 02:02:56
That concludes our meeting. 02:03:01
And our next meeting is. 02:03:03
April 9th. 02:03:07
Just lost my agenda. 02:03:08
Where we will look forward to having a presentation by the City manager and the meeting is adjourned at. 02:03:10
Five O 3, thank you. 02:03:17
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
All right. And it is 3:00 PM. I will call this meeting to order Tuesday, March 12th Architectural Review Board meeting. 00:00:12
May have a roll call. 00:00:21
Chair Bornstein. 00:00:26
Vice Chair Boyle. 00:00:29
Here, Secretary Brooks. 00:00:30
We have three present. 00:00:33
One vacancy, 1 absent, we do have a quorum. 00:00:36
Thank you. Moving on to item number two, approval of the agenda. 00:00:40
Can I ask for a motion to approve? I'll move to approve. 00:00:47
I'll second. 00:00:52
Roll call. 00:00:57
We don't have to do roll call anymore. If you don't want. I'll do it. I'm happy to do it. If that's what you can prefer. Yeah. You 00:01:00
just have to say all in favor, All in favor. 00:01:04
Aye. 00:01:09
Aye. 00:01:12
OK. I want to item number three, board and staff announcements. 00:01:16
Any board announcements? 00:01:22
I don't have anything. 00:01:25
Staff announcements. 00:01:27
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Bornstein. My name is Karen Vaughn. I'm the city's new community development director and just 00:01:31
wanted to pass on a few announcements. 00:01:36
First, the City Council held a budget workshop in February where they discussed. 00:01:42
The councils goals and priorities for the upcoming year. 00:01:49
In anticipation of moving into budget season for next fiscal year and the Interim City Manager has graciously offered to come and 00:01:53
do a brief presentation at each of the BCC meetings to go over what the City councils goals and priorities are. So we've got him 00:01:59
scheduled for your meeting next month in April. 00:02:06
To do that presentation. 00:02:13
And then also, as you're aware, the BCC handbook is under revision by the City Manager, City attorney, and City Council. 00:02:15
And that is scheduled on the City Council agenda next week on March 20th. 00:02:25
And once those revisions are adopted by council, the interim city manager and city attorney are going to be preparing some 00:02:31
training sessions for our BCCS. 00:02:36
And so we're hoping that that will also be occurring either in April or in early May. So that's something to look forward to. 00:02:42
Excellent. Thank you. 00:02:49
OK, moving on to item number 4. 00:02:53
Council liaison announcements. 00:02:56
And as I understand, Luke Colletti will be standing in for Debbie Buck. 00:03:04
This see on the. 00:03:08
I do not see him. 00:03:13
All right. Moving on to general public comment item number 5. 00:03:20
This is for items not on the agenda. 00:03:25
Are there any members in the audience that wish to speak? 00:03:29
Right seeing any motoring attendees wishing to speak for items not on the agenda. 00:03:34
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:03:43
Good afternoon, Chair. I'm sorry, but your microphone you are coming in fuzzy so I don't know what that is and I haven't really 00:03:49
heard anyone else, but yours is distorted, so thank you. 00:03:55
Maybe that can be fixed? 00:04:04
Thank you for that feedback. We have Lisa Gianni. 00:04:12
Thank you. I would just like to encourage ARB to request that Council. 00:04:19
Urge the Public Works Department to. 00:04:27
Bring back the. 00:04:32
I'm sorry. 00:04:35
I'm sorry. There was a voice there. I don't know. Can you hear me? 00:04:37
Yes, we can hear you OK. I would like you to urge Council to request Council to urge the Public Works Department to bring back the 00:04:42
archaeological protocol draft. 00:04:48
That they ran out of money somehow while public works over the last 2 1/2 years. Now it's been was was fiddling with it was they. 00:04:57
They apparently didn't like the draft, so. 00:05:03
Umm So Planning Commission didn't get to review it, nor did council. 00:05:12
And so you guys have been you and. 00:05:17
The Historic Resources Committee and. 00:05:22
The Planning Commission have been operating with. 00:05:26
Without a. 00:05:29
Archaeological protocol. 00:05:33
Despite the fact that a consultant was hired in at the end of. 00:05:37
2020. 00:05:45
Yeah. 00:05:50
And and there needs to be some consistency, there needs to be respect for tribal. 00:05:52
UH leaders and and tribal monitors I. 00:06:00
And and. 00:06:04
There's I can't get a I'm sorry I'm stumbling here. I I can't get a clear answer from the public works. 00:06:06
Director of. 00:06:17
When he will bring this back, it's been since. 00:06:19
Let's see that was October, September that Planning Commission heard the presentation by the the. 00:06:25
Consult. 00:06:33
But there it was after 10:00 and um. 00:06:35
So they they continued it to be discussed the next time. 00:06:39
And the next time? 00:06:45
They found out that that the project, the yeah, the project had run out of money. So I. 00:06:47
This is this. 00:06:57
Initiated by the city manager back in 2020 because of a an appeal of a city project that did not handle. 00:06:59
Archaeological resource protection correctly. 00:07:10
And so it really it's it's very important to get this going and and I hope. 00:07:14
That if. 00:07:19
Council hears from you. They they. 00:07:22
Take action on. 00:07:25
I I finally got it going last year but it only got so far. It only got to the presentation stage and that was it. 00:07:29
Thank you. 00:07:38
Thank you. 00:07:42
We have no further hands raised. 00:07:47
All right. Moving on to our consent agenda, would any members of the public like to pull anything from the consent agenda? 00:07:49
Right. 00:08:00
Chambers or online? I'll bring it back to the board and entertain a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. 00:08:03
I'll move that we approve the consent agenda as submitted. 00:08:12
2nd. 00:08:16
All in favor. 00:08:19
Aye, aye. 00:08:20
That brings us to our regular agenda. 00:08:25
Public hearings. 00:08:27
Item number 8A. We will begin with architectural permit and variance. 00:08:30
At 201st St. and 100 and sorry 113 2nd St. 00:08:35
May we have a staff report please? 00:08:42
Yes. 00:08:51
This proposed project would include the demolition. 00:08:54
Of an existing garage. 00:08:58
House and accessory dwelling unit. 00:09:00
An additional site improvements in the construction of a new 3255 square foot, one story residence. 00:09:03
With an attached garage in the R3 PGR zoning district. 00:09:12
And the city's coastal zone. 00:09:17
Because the project is located within the city's coastal zone, it requires Planning Commission approval. 00:09:20
Of the architectural permit, the associated variance, and the coastal development permit. 00:09:27
The site contains approximately 8448 square feet. 00:09:35
And there's a corner lot whose intersection. 00:09:40
Who's intersecting corner property lines are found along a curve. It has project frontage. 00:09:45
Along three public streets, 1st St. Central Ave. and 2nd St. 00:09:51
On February 26th of 2020, the HRC. 00:09:58
Remove the Subject property from the city's Historic Resources Inventory. 00:10:02
Finding that the property did not have. 00:10:07
Historics. It was not historically significant. 00:10:10
And the HRC's signed resolution was attached to the staff report in your agenda packet. 00:10:14
As proposed, the project would comply with the zoning regulations. 00:10:23
Of the R3 PGR. 00:10:28
Zoning district. This includes building height, setbacks, gross floor area. 00:10:30
Allowable site and building coverage. 00:10:37
There is an allowance within the R3 PGR zoning district that allows the front yard to be reduced. 00:10:43
To four feet for up to 50% of the front of the building. 00:10:51
The project has been designed to utilize this provision of the zoning code. 00:10:55
However, that provision is not available to properties that are located in the coastal zone. 00:10:59
This is the variance that is associated with the project and would require Planning Commission approval in order to allow the 00:11:07
project to be constructed as proposed. 00:11:12
As designed, the project would be compatible. 00:11:19
With the neighborhood which is comprised of small to medium sized one story and two-story. 00:11:22
Single family residences. 00:11:28
With a variety of different architectural styles and scales. 00:11:31
This project is designed most similarly to a contemporary Craftsman style home. 00:11:35
The existing structures on the site include A2 story single family home. 00:11:44
And a detached garage fronting onto Central Ave. 00:11:49
The driveway to that garage. 00:11:52
Is at the corner edge of Central Ave. and 2nd St. 00:11:55
With inadequate distance from that intersection. 00:12:00
A detached Adu. 00:12:04
Is located behind the garage and it faces 2nd St. 00:12:07
But the detached garage and that Adu. 00:12:12
Are approximately 6 inches from the 2nd St. property line based on Sydney records and the applicants information. 00:12:16
Because they are only set back 6 inches from the street, they are considered non conforming as to setbacks. 00:12:28
Because the proposed project. 00:12:35
Includes the demolition of those existing structures and the construction. 00:12:37
Of the new single family residence. 00:12:42
With a with a set back averaging anywhere from 4 to 8 feet from the 2nd St. property line. 00:12:46
The proposed project would bring. 00:12:53
The property into closer conformance. 00:12:56
With the requirements the set back requirements of the cities local coastal program implementing plan. 00:12:59
Specifically by reducing building height in order to maintain. 00:13:08
And enhance public views. 00:13:12
The desired pedestrian scale and community character. 00:13:14
Of the. 00:13:19
The architectural style and materials and site design are in substantial conformance with the City's Architectural Review 00:13:25
Guidelines. 00:13:29
Specifically, guidelines #1. 00:13:33
4627. 00:13:36
34 and 38. 00:13:39
Staff has made findings. 00:13:42
In support of those guidelines in the staff report. 00:13:44
A preliminary archaeological assessment was prepared on behalf of the applicant for the project. 00:13:52
The assessment found that the property has undergone moderate to substantial ground disturbance. 00:13:59
Dating all the way back to 1922. 00:14:05
And that records that exist for the property have not indicated or resulted in known archaeological resources. 00:14:08
Or site indicators of those resources on the property. 00:14:16
Staff has included several conditions of approval that were recommended by the assessment. 00:14:21
In the draft permit that were attacked that was attached to the staff report in the agenda packet. 00:14:27
The applicant has not provided A detailed lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the local coastal program and the 00:14:34
architectural. 00:14:38
Guidelines staff has conditioned the project to require this information. 00:14:42
Be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 00:14:49
Staff recommends forwarding the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. 00:14:54
We do find in favor and support of the variance. 00:15:01
I requested for the front set back along 2nd Ave. 00:15:07
Staff is also requesting that minor amendments to the permit. 00:15:12
Be included in the Arby's recommendation? 00:15:19
Those corrections would include correcting the owner's name and date of the project plans. 00:15:25
And striking the redundant conditions of approval pertaining to cultural resources. 00:15:32
And procedural requirements. 00:15:38
Should cultural resources be found on the property? 00:15:40
I can answer any questions that you have. 00:15:44
Any questions for staff? 00:15:50
All right, seeing them, invite the applicant or owner up to make a presentation if you'd like, and you will have 10 minutes. 00:15:56
OK, Jeannie Byrne, architect for the project. 00:16:16
Thank you for that staff report. 00:16:21
So just to go over some of the criteria that we went through designing this project. 00:16:24
We started with the site planning and 1st consideration was correcting the safety issue with the driveway which currently is off 00:16:30
central. 00:16:34
So the solution for that was to move the driveway. 00:16:41
And the front entrance to 2nd St. which is much more in keeping with other properties in that neighborhood. 00:16:44
Also, we oriented the house I. 00:16:53
So that it opens to the South, opening up the Senate part of the yard. 00:16:56
And it takes it away from the the two-story house that's at the back so. 00:17:00
Their public space for the new house won't interfere with the neighborhood to the back. 00:17:08
Also this preserves sort of that open view that when you're coming from Monterey on Central towards Pacific Grove, you see kind of 00:17:15
across the property and we would maintain that. 00:17:21
The architectural design criteria we it is a single story residence that's replacing the existing two-story houses there. 00:17:29
Has an open floor plan and is. 00:17:38
Again, oriented to the open space on the South. 00:17:41
The architectural guidelines for the retreat were referred to in keeping with the character of their retreat, such as scale, roof, 00:17:47
pitch materials. 00:17:51
And including the option in the retreat to reduce the front yard set back to four feet. 00:17:55
For presenting to the front building elevation. 00:18:02
And that was done years ago. 00:18:05
In order to keep that retreat area from looking like track housing as new projects go in because, as you know, the retreat. 00:18:08
Has set everything from zero front yard set back to 20 feet so. 00:18:17
We thought that was an important condition to maintain. 00:18:25
Style wise, the project is a simple contemporary Craftsman. 00:18:32
With board and bat siding, 8 and 12 roof pitch. 00:18:37
And it reflects. 00:18:41
Sort of the original tent cottage look that was. 00:18:44
The original. 00:18:48
Retreat if you've seen some of the old pictures. 00:18:49
So in summary, project meets all the zoning, code requirements, setbacks, lot, coverage, height, floor, area. 00:18:53
And the