No Bookmarks Exist.
All right. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Architectural Review Board meeting. It's May 14th. I will now call this meeting to 00:00:21
order. Can we get a roll call, please? 00:00:25
Chair Bornstein here. 00:00:34
Commissioner, sorry, a board member Boyle here, board member Sutton. 00:00:36
Secretary Brooks, board member Huff here, and I apologize. I believe it's Vice Chair Boyle. 00:00:43
We're all here. We have a quorum. 00:00:52
Thank you. 00:00:55
Would anybody like to make a motion moving on to approval of the agenda? 00:00:58
2nd. 00:01:05
All in favor. 00:01:06
Aye. 00:01:08
Motion passes unanimously. 00:01:11
All right. We'll move down to board item number three, board and staff announcements. We'll start with council liaison 00:01:13
announcements. And today we have Mayor Peak with us. 00:01:18
Good afternoon, Chair Bornstein, and thank you, board members for your service. So I was asked to speak for Council Member Debbie 00:01:29
Beck, who wasn't able to make it this afternoon on just a couple of short things. 00:01:36
I hope you all get a chance to meet our new city Manager, Matt Morganson. He he's on at another meeting right now, otherwise I'm 00:01:44
sure he would be here. 00:01:51
And. 00:01:58
It's just what's coming up. We're about to kick off the budget. You know, our fiscal year starts July 1st, and tomorrow night a 00:02:00
council meeting will be talking about a capital improvement program. It's pretty bare bones, but. 00:02:09
In June 2 meetings we'll be going over the entire budget and maybe we can squeak in a few better, a few additional projects here 00:02:19
for our wonderful city. 00:02:25
Right. That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. 00:02:32
And I apologize, I skipped over item 3, which was board and staff announcements and that was we jumped right to #4. Are there any 00:02:35
board announcements? 00:02:39
All right, seeing none. Any staff announcements? 00:02:47
No staff notes. Thank you. 00:02:51
OK. We will move on to item number five, public comment. Is there any public comment for items not on the agenda? 00:02:53
Start with comments online. 00:03:05
With Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. 00:03:08
Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. 00:03:14
I had. 00:03:20
A. When I went to the city front page of the city where I usually go to, to Oh yes, we have a meeting today because I get the 00:03:22
advance agendas, which I'm glad because on today's front page it has the whole linked, the whole packet that downloads for the 00:03:30
agenda it it doesn't have the linked version. 00:03:37
And of course I'm on the newsletter advance, you know, so I get it. But and that is the linked agenda, which makes it easy. But 00:03:45
when you have a front page, anyone going to a front page of our city website and sees that that long packet is is in there and 00:03:52
they've got to go through the whole thing to find what they're looking for is going to be discouraged. Discouraged right off the 00:04:00
bat I think. And usually we have the linked one on the front page. So I would appreciate. 00:04:08
If. 00:04:17
The staff could attend to that and put the right one up. 00:04:18
And then I have one other item and that is that I sent two correction. I I sent 2 letters off to the CDD after the agenda was 00:04:23
posted. One was a correction and one was asking for clarification. And I got an automatic response back that had nothing to do 00:04:31
with my question whatsoever. It was just, oh, if you're looking for a permit or you can do this or you know, just an automatic 00:04:39
response. 00:04:46
And is a member of the public. I kind of find that unacceptable. Umm. 00:04:54
That I find an unresponsive staff. Thank you very much. 00:05:00
For your comments and your feedback. 00:05:09
Any other hands raised their hands online, right? Seeing none in the audience, we'll move on to our consent agenda. 00:05:15
Starting with #7A the draft minutes, I'd like to just acknowledge a few corrections that we have. 00:05:26
So from the draft minutes from April 9th. 00:05:36
I'll just read them out for the sake of time. Here we will be adding. 00:05:41
Under Consent agenda Item A, we'll be adding the verbiage action upon motion by Secretary Brooks, seconded by member Huff. The 00:05:50
board voted to approve the consent agenda motion carried 40, with one absent. 00:05:58
By the following roll call Vote eyes Anna Bornstein, Scott Brooks, Christy Sutton, and David Huff. 00:06:08
They were No's None and absent Sarah Boyle. 00:06:14
In our next correction will be under the regular agenda under Item B for architectural permit AP23-0043 for one 126 Austin Ave. 00:06:22
The correction will be under eyes it was stated Sarah Boyle that will be updated to Christy Sutton and under absent the minutes 00:06:32
read Sarah Boyle and that will be excuse me, the minutes read Christy Sutton. That'll be updated to Sarah Boyle. 00:06:42
Under Absent. 00:06:52
And the final correction will be under Item 11A under Presentations. The following verbage will be added that the Board received a 00:06:55
presentation from Mr. Perrault on Community Goals and the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2425. 00:07:03
Can I get a motion to approve the minutes as amended? 00:07:14
So moved. 00:07:18
All right, all in favor. 00:07:21
I. 00:07:24
I'm going to abstain because I did not have a chance to watch the meeting and I was absent. Fair enough. 00:07:27
OK, motion. 00:07:38
Carries. 00:07:39
All right. We'll move on to the public hearing portion of our meeting, starting with item A, architectural permit AP23-0208 or 127 00:07:42
Forest Ave. May we have a staff report? 00:07:49
Yes, thank you Chair Boyle and board members. 00:08:00
This is 127 Forest for a recommendation to the Planning Commission for Architectural Permit 23-0208 on March 12th. This was first 00:08:05
presented to the ARB and the the Architectural Review Board found that the project did not meet the Architectural Review 00:08:13
Guidelines and the project was continued to. 00:08:21
Today, May 14th, on April 11th, the applicant had submitted revisions which you are reviewing today. Can I get the next couple of 00:08:29
slides please? 00:08:34
One more please. 00:08:42
The existing conditions This is a undeveloped lot in the coastal zone. It is 1912 square feet. It's an interior parcel located 00:08:46
between 17th and 18th streets. The site is in the coastal zone, archaeological zone and in the city's area of special biological 00:08:54
significance. Phase one preliminary archaeological assessment found that no indication of pre contact of cultural sites, features 00:09:02
or artifacts. However, we do put a condition of approval. 00:09:10
Which will be on the permit for inadvertent discovery for human remains and cultural artifacts. The next slide. 00:09:19
The proposed project is the construction of a new three story single family residence. It's 1322 square feet with a 234 square 00:09:32
foot attached garage. There's also a 729 square foot accessory dwelling unit and the next couple of slides are the elevations of 00:09:39
this give you a second to take a look at those for the public to see them. The one on the street is a Street View. That's the 00:09:46
composite with the. 00:09:53
Hose house. 00:10:01
In between actually another proposed house and the existing if you see the red one with a hipped roof. 00:10:03
Next slide please. 00:10:10
Staff recommendation is that the Architectural Review Board recommend that the recommend to the Planning Commission the approval 00:10:14
of Architectural Permit 23-0208 with the findings and Conditions of approval and the Class 3 Categorical Exemption for new 00:10:22
Construction of or conversion of Small small structures and that is my staff report. If you have any questions, I'm here. 00:10:31
Thank you. There's no questions for staff. We'd like to invite the applicant up if you'd like to speak. 00:10:41
We'll have 10 minutes. 00:10:46
Welcome back. Hi, I'm Bill Method, the architect for the project. The owners are also here. So we went back and we took your 00:10:48
recommendations into consideration. We switched the direction of the of the Gable. We wanted to still honor the not impeding the 00:10:58
view from the one owner's other house. So we we kept the the Gable back with us with a small. 00:11:08
Yep, I guess in front of it and. 00:11:20
Kept a cross Gable in order to allow access to the third floor from the one side. So other than that I think we met most if not 00:11:26
all of your. 00:11:33
Requests. Any questions? 00:11:40
I have a quick question. Can I ask for clarity on a three? You still have the window in the garage, which I know had been brought 00:11:43
up by the board couple months ago, but I don't see it on those perspectives. I forgot to take it off the floor plan. Thank you. I 00:11:49
took it off the elevation. Yeah. 00:11:55
All right. I think that's it. I'll invite you back up if we have more. 00:12:04
Now we'll open up public comment for this project. Is there anyone in the room or online that wishes to speak about this item? 00:12:10
Lisa Gianni online. 00:12:20
Thank you. 00:12:24
I don't remember if I spoke about this last time, but I didn't have my map if I did. 00:12:27
And in any case, I wanted to say that the standard inadvertent discovery language is not appropriate in an archaeologically 00:12:35
sensitive area such as the coastal zone and in this case. 00:12:41
The. 00:12:50
I have a copy that archaeologist Gary Bruschini gave me of a map of the area with all the designated archaeological sites, and 00:12:52
this is right next door to one that's been designated. And of course not every site has been studied, but the fact that no 00:12:59
evidence of archaeological artifacts were found on the surface of the property or even slightly underground, I didn't read the 00:13:07
report. 00:13:14
Maybe it wasn't there, but in any case, standard archaeological discovery language is not appropriate and there should be at least 00:13:23
a tribal monitor, if not an archaeological monitor, and our. 00:13:31
The city's draft archaeological protocol has gone astray again, so it's been 3 1/2 years now since the city. 00:13:40
Contracted for an archaeological protocol and it will be much easier then, but I think the fact that this is in the coastal zone. 00:13:50
And an archaeologically sensitive area. 00:14:01
And next to an actual designated site just indicates that that the standard inadvertent discovery language is not suitable, it's 00:14:05
not appropriate, and there needs to be a. 00:14:12
What do you call her condition of approval for? 00:14:22
Tribal monitoring, if not archaeological monitoring. Thank you. 00:14:25
Thank you for your comments. 00:14:33
Welcome. 00:14:35
My name is Patsy Volpe. I live at 126 Grand Ave. which is directly behind the property in question. 00:14:37
And my neighbor Will probably already hates us, but the first complaint when the first pictures came out were because of the 00:14:44
windows that overlook our backyard and into our home. And sadly, from what I can understand on the new plan, it looks like not 00:14:52
only are there more windows, there is a balcony. 00:14:59
On the backside of the building. 00:15:08
The other concern is how close the story. Polls have come to our fence, which is not five feet. I know there might be different 00:15:12
rules because they've included an Adu, but it's still a massive structure towering over us and I understand something will go up 00:15:21
there, but maybe there could be a little more space between the fence and the building. 00:15:29
And the outlook for the tenants to our yard and home, if that could be changed or eliminated or put frosted glass, I don't know. 00:15:39
We're planning on some tall shrubs against the fence to eventually help with that, but. 00:15:48
You know, I know it's a huge building. We're going to lose our sunset views and our sky views, but I know that's probably not a 00:15:59
consideration, but that's what I wanted to say. 00:16:05
Thank you. Thank you. 00:16:12
Right. There's no additional public comment. Oh, welcome. 00:16:18
Hello there. My name is Stuart Newhouse. I live at 126 Forest Ave. which is directly across from the lot there, and I have watched 00:16:29
that lot be derelict for the entire 10 years I've lived there. I've looked at the plans that they have put together and I think 00:16:37
this house would very much fit into the neighborhood in the eclectic nature of what is in that neighborhood. There are already a 00:16:44
couple of towering houses on either side of those units. 00:16:51
Both at I believe it's a 124. You know, the big kind of burgundy house. There is a massive square block of the house I live in, 00:16:59
the white one, which is a giant slab of an ugliness made in the 80s. 00:17:05
So this would bring kind of like put a nice tooth in the toothless smile that is that street. 00:17:13
And I know that other people are concerned about they're going to lose views and stuff that they've had the graciousness of having 00:17:21
for so many years. But it would be really nice to have a nice house in that lot, especially for the 2 owners, because they are 00:17:28
really nice people. They deserve to have their their beautiful home in this town like the rest of us do. So hopefully, I would 00:17:35
like to see you guys approve that home as it is because it sounds like they made a lot of changes to the aesthetics to kind of. 00:17:42
Fit in so that would. 00:17:49
Thank you. Thank you. 00:17:52
Welcome, I'm Bruce McGlynn. I live next door at 133 Forest and. 00:18:06
There's I knew the lady that like, like Stewart was saying the house was in pretty bad condition for many years. And it. 00:18:13
I don't know how you'd be able to put anything. If you're going to put something that's going to be smaller or shorter or anything 00:18:26
else, it would look out. It would look out of sorts. I think. I really think that they put a lot of planning into what they did 00:18:33
and a lot of thought. I I really appreciate the concepts of how the thousands is done. Unlike the dandelion, dandelion house 00:18:40
across the street that people think is is a historic house all the time. Cracks me up, but. 00:18:47
It's, uh, it's it's. I think it's well worth the effort. Thank you. 00:18:55
Thank you. 00:19:00
Any other public comment on this item? 00:19:06
Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:19:11
I would like to begin. 00:19:21
I'll go ahead. Is this on? 00:19:24
Umm, I thought I would just address. 00:19:28
I think we spoke about this last time we saw this project that that. 00:19:32
The IT looks like a balcony on the back, but it's just housing the mechanical area, so I just wanted to let those lovely neighbors 00:19:39
on the back know that there aren't going to be people on that balcony. 00:19:47
That's going to be equipment and it's going to be kind of just hiding the equipment if I remember correctly. 00:19:56
I really like the changes that have been made to the roof line. I think it. 00:20:04
I think it. 00:20:13
They've they've done, they've done justice to the roofline in my opinion. I think it looks much better than it did before. I still 00:20:18
am not a lover of the entry and the rooftop deck above it, but I I understand the concept, I understand the lot coverage issues 00:20:29
that they're dealing with. But I just wanted to say that I'm very pleased with the way the roofline has turned out. 00:20:40
That's all for now. 00:20:51
I can go next. I will listen to the meeting from March yesterday, just to remind myself what all happened and I hadn't been at 00:20:55
that meeting, so it's my second. 00:20:59
Second time listening to it, so also very pleased with the changes to echo Sarah's comment. The mechanical wall to hopefully help 00:21:05
put the neighbors behind it ease and I'm good with the entry. I like the way you readdressed it with the planter boxes. I feel 00:21:12
like that softened it a bit and certainly understand the challenges, so I'm pleased. 00:21:20
I actually went to the site twice. I went through it first time and and was kind of marveling at how little there was to work with 00:21:36
and started to plan some more and went back again and I think the design team is done an excellent job. I think that for what they 00:21:44
have to work with with regard to space, I think that what they have designed here fits entirely within the character of that block 00:21:52
and the homes that are on it and it fits the design aesthetic as far as I'm concerned of all the architectural guidelines. 00:22:00
I have no issue with this project at all. 00:22:08
I think, yeah, I'd like to echo my colleagues comments. I think they agree with them. I think that the. 00:22:15
I think that. 00:22:24
The applicant went back and the plan is certainly much improved and. 00:22:26
They heard our guideline requests and certainly conformed to them and I think there was a, yeah, a great deal of improvement done 00:22:31
on this project. I I would invite maybe through the chair the applicant back up maybe just to address the comments raised by the 00:22:38
public, just to confirm, I think what Sarah said was accurate, but it might be better coming from the applicant just to confirm 00:22:44
that. 00:22:50
Yeah, Bill Mefford again. Yes, that is correct that the back, what looks like a balcony is a mechanical area the the wall is to 00:23:04
shield it from view from the neighbors. It helps to, yeah. 00:23:11
To not mask, but to reduce the amount of any noise from the equipment. The equipment is going to be more silent type equipment. 00:23:18
They're actually one of the owners is a mechanical contractor up in the Bay Area anyway because the the bedrooms are right there. 00:23:25
So they're going to use as quiet of equipment as they can. But yes, that wall that creates that quote UN quote balcony is a 00:23:32
mechanical space. 00:23:39
Just one. 00:23:47
Follow up on that. I believe the other comment also referenced some additional windows. I didn't. Yeah, there there's no 00:23:48
additional windows. Great. Thank you. 00:23:52
That's all I had. Thanks. 00:23:59
Right. Well, I concur with the board here. Thank you very much for taking our feedback and and updating your design. I think the 00:24:02
reorientation of the roof line and the Gables, it just it completely just fits in with that that neighborhood. And I also noticed 00:24:10
you, you got a little, little few more square feet out of it too and it appeared in my opinion that the third floor configuration 00:24:18
was improved. I liked how the, the primary bedroom was widened in the closet. 00:24:27
Positioning and the bathroom was a little bit bigger. So I think I'm hoping it's a win. I hope you enjoy it. This design and the I 00:24:35
also noticed in the that primary bedroom that the window size was reduced a little bit which will help mitigate some privacy 00:24:43
concerns as we think we just have to acknowledge it's always complex to design in the neighborhood of this density, but this 00:24:50
street in particular can really absorb that's height and massing in my opinion. 00:24:57
And I do. 00:25:06
Except I guess the the constraints or having that Adu be allowed to be within 3 feet of the fence. You know those are the rules. 00:25:08
So it's kind of conforms to code. 00:25:14
I would like to and I also acknowledge eliminating the garage windows. I know that your neighbor will be your friend, but for 00:25:22
future owners potentially that is a good designing. 00:25:27
Change too, and I would just like to ask staff regarding the public comment about the archaeological site is my understanding. I 00:25:34
thought that we had received a report. 00:25:40
An archaeological report and maybe it was on the neighboring parcel. I just didn't know if you had any comments regarding a known 00:25:47
site or if the conditions. 00:25:53
Are sufficient as as noted in the staff report. 00:26:01
Those conditions are. 00:26:06
What was proposed, they're actually the same conditions that were placed on 1/29 I believe forest when when that was approved, 00:26:09
this was 11 parcel at one point and was split into two. And so that archaeological report covered both of those. And so the 00:26:17
conditions that went with the approved permit that's already been there was ACDP use use permit as well. 00:26:26
And and AP. 00:26:36
They're the same conditions, OK. 00:26:38
Thank you. 00:26:40
All right. With that, would anybody like to make a motion to approve? 00:26:42
I'm happy to do so. I would move that we approve this up to. 00:26:50
The Planning Commission. 00:26:57
Permit number AP23-0208 Subject of Findings, Conditions of Approval and SEQUA Guidelines Class 3 Categorical Exemption as 00:27:01
submitted. 00:27:07
I'll second that. 00:27:16
All in favor. 00:27:18
Aye. 00:27:20
Aye. 00:27:23
Motion passes unanimously. 00:27:24
Right. Thank you. 00:27:26
All right, moving on to Item B, architectural permit AP23-0346 or 206 Lobos Ave. 00:27:30
Chair, I'm gonna recuse myself from this discussion. Yes, I'm friends with one of the neighbors. OK. Thank you. 00:27:40
Some member Sutton will be recusing herself. 00:27:47
Thank you. 00:28:02
This is 206 Libras Avenues Architectural Permit Application #23-0346 and this is for recommendation to the Planning Commission for 00:28:07
approval. 00:28:12
Wanted to make a couple of notes on posting. This was meant to go on last or I think two months ago and due to the need for a use 00:28:20
permit we had to. 00:28:26
Repost and and and do mailers. The note that I wanted to make it had to do with the story polls. I had gone out to look at the 00:28:34
story polls and noticed that they were a lot. 00:28:39
Just lines throat start showing the the railings that that go through that. So I wanted to point that out to you. 00:29:25
The next slide please. 00:29:33
This is a 4186 square foot interior parcel located on the West side of Lobos Ave. between Lighthouse Ave. and Short St. and the R4 00:29:36
zoning district. 00:29:41
It is. 00:29:47
Currently developed with a 1551 square foot two-story multifamily dwelling. 00:29:49
With a 400 square foot garage, the dwelling units consists of a 451 square foot front, first floor units and an 1100 square foot 00:29:54
rear, 1st and 2nd floor unit. 00:30:00
The site is not located in the coastal zone and the property is not listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. 00:30:06
If we can move through to the. 00:30:14
Proposed project. 00:30:18
The proposed project includes the construction of a new 343 square foot first floor addition to the north side of the existing 00:30:25
residence and it would result in a 1894 square foot multifamily dwelling and that's including all of the the front and and rear 00:30:33
units. The project also includes an additional second for doorway, a new second floor rooftop terrace. 00:30:40
And a new steroid stairway leading to grade. The front exterior stairs to the South of the garage are supposed to be removed. And 00:30:49
these are the at the driveway level and at the sidewalk level to be removed for what they were calling an elevator, but it's 00:30:56
basically a lift for accessibility to the residents. 00:31:02
Can we go through? 00:31:11
The. 00:31:14
One thing that had come up if we can get to the slide of the there we go this survey, the survey that was completed originally 00:31:16
when the story polls and and the plans were given to us. 00:31:23
We did not require a survey, but due to some a neighborhood, a neighbor complaint, we wanted to make sure that the applicant had 00:31:32
the correct distance and what ended up they found was that where they had the story polls line was at 4 1/2 feet instead of five 00:31:38
feet. 00:31:43
And so the next slide they gave an update with a detail showing that they pushed the addition back the the extra, the additional 6 00:31:49
feet to make the five feet. So I want to make sure that's noted on the plans and then the next slide is that detail. 00:31:59
They're using the next slide please. 00:32:11
And one more they're using materials that are existing. These are the matching to match existing home and the staff recommends 00:32:14
that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to findings, conditions of approval and 00:32:22
Class 1 categorical exemptions for existing structures. And that is the end of my presentation and I am here for questions. 00:32:30
Any questions for staff? 00:32:40
At this time we would like to invite the applicant up. 00:32:43
If they would like to make a presentation. 00:32:47
You'll have a 10 minutes. 00:32:52
I think it has to go through staff. 00:32:59
These did end up these were a letter that came in today as part of their presentation. And it was. 00:33:03
It did end up being a part of the packet that went that went online, so I'll just give you guys the these are. 00:33:12
And I didn't look online, but I did not notice this, so I'm just going to prove for a minute if you don't. 00:33:43
And. 00:33:48
Right. We'll invite you to begin your presentation if you'd like. You have 10 minutes. So I think as far as it being skewed, we 00:34:42
had the Surveyor put reference pins and I. 00:34:49
As far as the house being skewed from the property line and sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt, but are you are you the same applicant 00:34:58
as on the plan set or? 00:35:03
OK, so you're the designer now? Yeah. Just want to clarify. Yeah. So I know there was concern if that house is skewed, if we 00:35:11
reference it from one point, it would be closer. 00:35:19
As we go out towards the edge of the project, we had multiple pin reference pins on the survey put in, so we'll make sure that we. 00:35:27
Stay two or five feet. 00:35:36
And. 00:35:42
Yeah, the only other thing about mention of the balcony on 2/02. 00:35:49
Lobos There's a balcony that. 00:35:54
Is overlooking. 00:35:59
Very similar. Well, it would be a lot more because I don't think there's any trees or anything in the way, but. 00:36:02
I think a lot of the issues are addressed in that letter. That's about what I have to offer. 00:36:10
Any questions for the applicant? 00:36:18
Through the chair I Can you explain one more time about the removal of the stairs from the street level? So there, there aren't 00:36:25
going to be any stairs, only the lift. OK, At the street from the street, there's a old set of concrete steps that go up. And 00:36:34
Randy the husband is going to need a wheelchair pretty soon. And so we're going to put a wheelchair lift in there so those old 00:36:42
steps would come out. 00:36:50
And we just put a lift in there. It'll have a similar face to the fence, so it won't be that noticeable. It'll just have a gate to 00:36:59
open up. The wheelchair will go in. It'll lift. OK, second floor. 00:37:06
And that'll be from the driveway level and the street to the first floor, yeah. 00:37:15
Yeah, yeah, it's it's just right there. It's it's actually ends up being about 6 1/2 feet. And there is a second set of stairs to 00:37:24
the there are two sets of stairs currently. OK, that was what was confusing. Yes. And the visual from the street, it almost looks 00:37:31
like it. They belong to the neighbors. They have the the stone wall there. 00:37:38
Right. Yeah. But that, that's those stairs are being replaced, Yeah. And then inside the house, there's a real staircase, which is 00:37:46
part of the issue. We're putting an elevator in there, and that's the reason for the exterior staircase on the front porch. 00:37:54
Edition is egress in case of emergency, things like that. So that'll be their only way out of something happens with the elevator 00:38:01
to get down from the second floor. 00:38:09
Defers would be. 00:38:17
Out on the balcony and that way. 00:38:20
Something like that, And the top door is existing. There's a balcony there now. 00:38:23
Do you have a question for the applicant? Remember? 00:38:29
Yeah, I do. I. 00:38:32
Following up on the stair and I understand the need for it, but. 00:38:34
Right now it comes projects out into the yard to the north and then returns to the South. Did you consider the feasibility of 00:38:37
bringing it off the balcony towards the east and then turning it 90° to the north? That way it wouldn't protrude into the yard and 00:38:43
further obscure the, you know, the kind of mass up the back of the yard right next to the existing rear yard neighbor? Yeah, we 00:38:50
looked into that and it could be revisited. You know, we're we're open to work or if we need to make that solid instead of cables 00:38:56
or something like that, but. 00:39:03
The existing staircase to the second unit. 00:39:10
Where the daughter lives, it's pretty tight right there. Coming out and going around. It blocks the windows from that unit. 00:39:13
Yeah, I understand it would block that, that one window in that unit, but I'm just wondering if that was considered as a design 00:39:24
compromise to the proposed design which creates this whole kind of managing. 00:39:31
There, it would be really tight. That was something we wanted to do because they wanted that corner where the stairs are 00:39:40
represented now. 00:39:45
Umm, for something else but. 00:39:51
It could be revisited. We can look at that. 00:39:55
It's just a redesign and more delay. And Randy's health is. 00:39:59
Not good. So we're trying to expedite everything we can. 00:40:07
Any further clarifying questions? OK. 00:40:13
Thank you. We'll invite you back up if you have any more questions. Now we'll open a public comment for this item. Are there any 00:40:17
members in the audience or online? All right. 00:40:22
Welcome. 00:40:32
Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Sadoff. I'm here on behalf of Kim and Alan Weindorf, The Neighbors to 206 Lobos. 00:40:38
The Wonders are currently opposed to the project as designed due to the to its violating zoning laws, expanding non conforming 00:40:47
uses and the privacy concerns that it creates for their property. 00:40:52
1st is the backyard setbacks. As you can see in the application, this is going to create a second story. Terrace is effectively 00:40:58
expanding the second story living area. It includes A stairway. It replaces a second story door. By its nature this is really a 00:41:05
second story project, A2 story project. As a result it should really be subject to the 8 foot set back that all two-story 00:41:11
development is supposed to be subject to in PHG. 00:41:17
Even if it wasn't a. 00:41:25
Two-story development in nature. 00:41:27
The survey creates A dilemma and being able to establish that this project actually complies with even the five foot set back. The 00:41:31
survey that's that is in the packet only has one point of measurement, reference and when. 00:41:37
When you look at the property itself, it does appear to be skewed to the property line. Without an adequate survey that assesses 00:41:46
the full length of that, there is no way the information is not before the board today to be able to say that the current stakes 00:41:52
are going to be adequate to even have it comply with A5 foot set back. 00:41:58
In addition to this, the buildings are already very close together. We submitted a letter that includes photos that demonstrates 00:42:05
how clues close the eaves of the two buildings are, and this is going to be further exacerbated by the project if it is developed 00:42:10
as designed. 00:42:15
In addition to this, it's going to expand the existing nonconformities. The current building is already less than 5 feet from the 00:42:23
property line, which doesn't comport with the requirements for a two-story set back. In addition, it is already within that 8 foot 00:42:29
set back that's between buildings. 00:42:35
If this project is built, is going to extend those nonconformities an additional 26 feet, And that's contrary to the purposes of 00:42:42
zoning, which is intended to prevent additional nonconformities and eventually phase them out. 00:42:47
This project has substantial privacy concerns for the Wendorf's and the letter we that we submitted. You can see photos taken from 00:42:54
inside the Wendorf's home, whether this is in their living room, their kitchen, their front room, all the way to the other side of 00:43:00
the house, on the first story in their personal bedroom, on the deck, and even on the second story in their guest bedroom and 00:43:06
office. All of those locations can be seen by the project as currently designed. It essentially strips some of the privacy to be 00:43:12
able to. 00:43:18
Live in quiet solitude, essentially in their own home. For all of these reasons, we urge you to recommend denial of this permit to 00:43:25
the Planning Commission. Thank you. 00:43:30
Thank you. 00:43:36
Good afternoon, members of the ARB. My name is Hunter Eldridge and you can know me. I'm an architect practicing architecture in 00:43:51
this town. I've practiced architecture in this town over the last 20 years and I have been asked by the neighbors, Kim and Alan 00:43:57
Wendorf, to take a look at this project and provide some criticism. 00:44:04
I'll assume there'll be members of have read my letter, and I'll try to keep this as short as possible. 00:44:12
Currently, the proposed design essentially wipes out all of the views, light, and privacy on the rear of the Windorf home and 00:44:18
resulting in egregious encroachments and into the privacy of their home. The owner of the proposed project is essentially taking 00:44:23
over their views, light, and. 00:44:29
And at the same time violating their privacy with by building this long and extended addition across the rear yard up against what 00:44:35
appears to be a 5 foot set back. I'm going to question that in a second. I recognize the views are not owned by anyone here, but 00:44:41
the owner and the designer should feel an obligation to design the project in a manner that's compatible with the neighbor. 00:44:48
Generally this project may appear to be compatible with the neighborhood, but in the case of the wind or directly adjacent to the 00:44:54
project. 00:45:00
It really isn't compatible at all. 00:45:07
Through a variety of their spaces, including the bed that they sleep in. Umm. 00:45:44
I've had this discussion with Mr. Campbell who I respect on other projects and it's been my understanding that any two-story 00:45:51
design scheme in in this zoning requires an 8 foot set back. So I question respect for question the the five foot set back here. 00:45:59
I'd also like to point out that the design really isn't based off of a land survey late in the game. The applicant brought in 00:46:07
Frank Lucido surveyor Frank Lucido to survey the story polls. 00:46:14
But they did not do a complete survey of the property. I work with Mr. Lucido often and I called him up and asked him about this 00:46:23
and he agreed with me. He could not confirm whether the rear property line is skewed to the rear of the house or not because he 00:46:31
just didn't do enough work. If you read the the exhibit that Mister Lucido provided you, it's referenced as a survey sketch. It is 00:46:38
not a full survey of the property and it isn't sufficient. I wouldn't have started this project without a full blown survey. 00:46:46
They're essentially flying blind on some level, and they still don't know exactly where their set back is, whether the property 00:46:54
boundary is skewed to the rear of the house or not. 00:46:59
Let's leave it at that. 00:47:05
We're kind of overtime if you can summarize your comments real overtime if you want to summarize your statements. 00:47:10
It seems to me that moving the the wendorf's the stairs away from the winder's house is an obvious solution that would really be 00:47:18
helpful, as Mr. Huff suggests. 00:47:23
The upper level deck in the proposed project is 5.8 times larger than the existing balcony. It's a huge deck. I mean it covers the 00:47:30
entire footprint of the lower level proposed. 00:47:34
I question the need for that. What's it going to be used for social gatherings? It's a lot larger than the space it serves, 00:47:40
really, so that could become another problem. 00:47:45
Beyond that. 00:47:52
I guess I've exceeded my time. I'll stop. Right. Thank you. Thank you. 00:47:54
Is there any other public comment? 00:48:00
Or online. 00:48:04
All right. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:48:09
Oh, I just see a hand raised. Yeah, Bingo. Lorenzen Dahmer, Just raise your hand. 00:48:14
Thank you. 00:48:21
Chair and board members, I've really been noticing a lot of fudging on on setbacks and I really hope you are very familiar with 00:48:24
our code and. 00:48:31
Granting of variances and our LCP which which prevails over our code even if there is a disagreement. And I would hope that you're 00:48:41
paying really close attention to these setback issues. Thank you very much. 00:48:49
Thank you. 00:49:00
Seeing no additional hands raised, we will now close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:49:04
Remember Huff, would you like to begin? I have a few questions for staff. That's OK. 00:49:13
I I've read the I've read the letters about the survey. I've. I've. 00:49:20
Heard the public comments about the survey as staff satisfied with the survey work that's been done. 00:49:25
Yes. And further, we're satisfied with a plan that says it's going to be 5 foot set back. So in the building process that is part 00:49:31
of what our inspectors do is to make sure that that set back is met. So if the plan say 5 feet, they won't be able to go 4 1/2 00:49:38
feet, they won't be able to go 3 feet, they'll have to go 5. And if at that point I believe if we have, I think he was saying 00:49:46
that, that it's been staked. Did you, did you say that was? 00:49:53
There were points that were staked for reference. 00:50:01
But do you want to come back to the come back to the sorry to the microphone so people online can hear? 00:50:08
Yeah. Thank you. 00:50:14
Yes, we had Frank, Frank, Lorenzo, the surveyor put multiple. 00:50:16
Reference points on the survey in the area of the proposed project, so we can reference those points exactly for a measurement. 00:50:23
And if I may again. 00:50:34
When we review plans, we review informants. If it had said that it was 4 1/2 feet, we would have said no. But the plans say 5 00:50:36
feet. So what you're approving is a plan for five feet. 00:50:42
Makes sense with regard to the. 00:50:51
In the in the staff report and I'm looking in the section beginning with the applicable zoning code requirement regulations. 00:50:54
The statement is made that as proposed, the project would not increase any existing or create new nonconformities. 00:51:04
Just same kind of question I. 00:51:11
Just based upon the public comment that you've received and and the letters received or is it still staff's view that that is in 00:51:16
fact the case? Yes. I think the original plans where he hadn't set that back that 6 inches, he did right five feet. But when they 00:51:22
got the survey they found out that that house was actually closer to five feet because they were if if they had gone straight with 00:51:29
that line. 00:51:35
And and hadn't done that survey then yeah that would have been it would have been a continuing of that non conforming, but it's 00:51:42
not continuing and nonconformity. 00:51:45
OK, so just. 00:51:49
My comments are that there's there's a couple things about this project that concern me. 00:51:51
Umm, first is the Good Neighbor considerations and particularly guideline #7 in our handbook. 00:51:57
And. 00:52:05
I had to balance in my mind this new expansive balcony with the fact that but there already is an existing balcony. 00:52:06
And and that balcony was in existence, I think. When? 00:52:15
The neighbors purchased their home. 00:52:20
And the home that they purchased, I'm Speaking of the rear, the rear yard neighbors and the home that they purchased, they 00:52:23
purchased knowing that it clearly was not, it clearly was non conforming as it was cited on that property. And so with that I 00:52:28
think they purchased some. 00:52:34
Some burden. 00:52:40
That would you know, come with their house and perhaps future development of of their neighbors home. And so I really struggled 00:52:41
with that balcony and been thinking about this plan and at the end of the day I've, I think I come to rest on the point of that 00:52:48
there already is an existing balcony and when the windor purchased their home, that balcony was there and yeah, the balconies 00:52:55
being extended, but it's being extended away from them. 00:53:02
Umm, so it's not the balcony itself that troubles me, it's the stair. 00:53:09
Because I don't think the stair matches any type of design aesthetic that that we see in single family homes in Pacific Grove. 00:53:15
I think it masses the the the remaining greenscape in the yard in a way that is unappealing. 00:53:26
And it unnecessary. This is a way that under thinking about good neighbor considerations that we can ameliorate perhaps the impact 00:53:36
on the windorfs and what you know what their, what you know they were going to experience by the result of this. So I wonder if 00:53:43
it's possible that we could ask that there be a reconsideration of that stare and I understand that it may be needed for. 00:53:50
The personal necessities of the residents, and I'm very respectful of that and mindful that I'm wondering if it's possible as a 00:53:57
design compromise. Like as I mentioned, if that window and the first story duplex can be impaired a bit and the stair come down to 00:54:04
the east and turn to, I forget which direction it was, but turn turn 90° in a way that would then. 00:54:11
And obviously I don't know if that can be implemented in the space and meet all access codes etcetera, but assuming that it can, I 00:54:18
think that would be a design compromise that would help the implementation of this project. 00:54:25
Thank you. 00:54:32
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this project. I think that there are I have a lot of questions for it and I think the some middle. 00:54:39
By the neighbors and by Mr. Eldridge. The points there are very well taken. 00:54:48
I'd like to go back to staff and get a little further clarity on a couple of the points raised with respect to the subject codes. 00:54:55
So the first one was like Staffs response to 23.68 point 050 E with respect to non non conforming aspects may not be expanded I. 00:55:07
So. 00:55:25
The first point being that I do believe that we need a full comprehensive survey to understand whether. 00:55:28
Whether the current proposed plan is within. 00:55:36
The five foot set back but then the others, but the tangential question related to that is. 00:55:39
What is staff's response to whether this should be an 8 foot set back as opposed to a minimum of an 8 foot set back as opposed to 00:55:45
five feet based based on it being a second two points is what I understood based on one being at a an actually actually a second 00:55:52
story addition. 00:55:58
And the other aspect of. 00:56:06
8 feet between buildings, and I guess staff's current interpretation of the code being that that only applies to. 00:56:09
The actual lot being evaluated and not between neighbors and that didn't make much sense to me and so I was wanted to see what 00:56:20
staff's response was to. 00:56:26
The neighbor's critiques. 00:56:34
And thank you very much, board member, my name is Karen Vaughn, I'm the city's Community Development director. And I can address a 00:56:39
little bit of what the comment letters stated and your questions on the zoning code. So first of all, I. 00:56:48
Zoning code section 23.04, point 040. 00:56:57
Grants the chief planner, which would be myself, the authority to interpret the zoning code so that authority rests with me. 00:57:03
Some of you may know I worked here 15 years ago as a senior planner and this was an interpretation that we worked with back back 00:57:13
then in terms of the step backing of setbacks for upper stories on on homes. 00:57:21
In this particular case. 00:57:32
As you noted, a single story element would have a 5 foot rear yard set back. So if you think about a single story, Home could be 00:57:34
built to the five foot set back in the rear. And if they came in at a later date and wanted to add a second story, the second 00:57:41
story would be set back to the 8 foot mark. So looking at it that way. 00:57:49
We apply that as the rear yard setbacks for the for a single story element versus a second story versus a third story element. So 00:57:57
the interpretation is that they can do this step back design. That was the interpretation here previously. I I do understand that. 00:58:06
Recently there was a more conservative interpretation made of that. 00:58:17
I'm generally of the opinion once an interpretation is made. 00:58:24
The implementation of the zoning code shouldn't change person by person who's sitting in the director's chair. We want it to be 00:58:30
consistent throughout staff and and throughout the city. Because there have been multiple interpretations of the same rear yard 00:58:36
set back aspect. I am reasserting the original interpretation that I worked with here 15 years ago which allows for the step back 00:58:43
design. OK, if I can just interject there. Understood. So if it's a second story, it needs to be set back 8 foot third story, I 00:58:49
think it's 10. 00:58:56
So just so my understanding is accurate though if there is a. 00:59:03
Second story deck is that. Are you saying that that's not considered a second story then? Or is that Second story deck have to be 00:59:07
set back eight feet? No, it does not need to be set back eight feet because it's not habitable floor area. 00:59:14
OK. 00:59:22
So only the the wall of the structure for the second story would be set back at the 8 foot mark. OK. Thank you. 00:59:23
And then in terms of the, I think is it an 8 foot separation between between structures, right that is on a per lot basis? 00:59:31
Because neighboring properties have non conforming situations with their buildings, that does not impinge on the rights of a 00:59:42
property owner. 00:59:47
To do development on their property. So it's that 8 foot building separation is only within the lot itself. That's a city 00:59:53
interpretation or what. Yeah, that's interesting to me. That's the code. Yeah. Well when you think about it, there are other 01:00:02
sections of the code like for Adus that allow a three foot set back for accessory structures that can be 5 foot set back. So in 01:00:11
and of itself the code allows provisions for structures to be closer than 8 feet together. 01:00:19
On neighboring lots. I thought about that and that's interesting, but. 01:00:29
You. I would think that my. 01:00:33
My response to that was simply that, well, it's kind of like a first in time 1st and right application in terms of, well, if you 01:00:37
built 3 feet. 01:00:41
Would then buy the set back from your from. 01:00:47
From the property line and you built there 1st and that was her code and fine. It simply just means that your neighbor now can't 01:00:51
build has to build at least five feet back. Yeah, no, that's not the case. And in fact that would probably be legally challenged 01:00:57
because that could be considered a partial taking. 01:01:04
Of the adjacent property owners rights. 01:01:12
Interesting. 01:01:17
Yeah, it'd be interesting. I mean I certainly defer to the staff on it, but it seems interesting in terms of just like the fire 01:01:20
application hazard there. But OK, there is no, well just that's that's also again with building and I have checked with John Keel 01:01:27
in the past and there is no building code that says you can't be closed right now. Building code builds fire separation not in 01:01:33
distance. 01:01:39
But in time so that wall may be a one hour rating or whatever they it's so it's not in residential commercials a different story 01:01:46
they would they would change that but also keep in mind that this is the R4 zoning district. R4 zoning district is high density so 01:01:54
on these lots it's kind of weird because this if you've noticed it is a budding on R1 zoning district so but the thing that you 01:02:01
think about when multi family. 01:02:09
Is that they are building and so that's part of design of the property. It's usually larger properties. 01:02:16
Able to build multiple buildings on one property, so since it is a high density, it's. 01:02:23
Are for the thought is like let it's that's where it's on site thinking about doing multifamily and multi buildings and those 01:02:30
distances per building on site interesting. Thank you that's very helpful staff I appreciate certainly and and then I just wanted 01:02:35
to. 01:02:41
Address one final comment that one of the commenters made about the the project violating zoning laws. So our review of this 01:02:48
application with the five foot rear yard set back. 01:02:55
It's not extending or expanding any existing nonconformity. It's not creating any new nonconformity. It is conforming with the 01:03:03
setbacks I. 01:03:09
And building separation requirements. So from staff's viewpoint, there is no violation of any zoning ordinance issues on the site. 01:03:16
Very good that that all makes sense and I appreciate again the clarity there. I'm. 01:03:28
I still. 01:03:34
Have problems with this project based on the ARB guidelines, specifically 7 that was already raised and I think that. 01:03:36
I agree with. 01:03:45
Member huff that there are as currently designed. I don't think that that is workable with guideline 7 and so I agree that I think 01:03:48
that that aspect particularly the stairs. 01:03:55
Not only I think it's just. 01:04:05
Not very aesthetically pleasing, but more importantly, in terms of the detrimental impact to the neighbors, I don't think it 01:04:07
sufficiently complies with Air B Guideline 7, and therefore I'm personally not comfortable with the current plan set. That's all 01:04:13
I'll say say for now. 01:04:18
I agree. I. 01:04:35
I wish there was a full. 01:04:40
Property survey done prior to the design because now I'm, you know, questioning. 01:04:44
Questioning the lot lines and I. 01:04:53
It seems like it would have been the right thing to do in the beginning before designing. 01:04:59
I'm not in favor of the of expanding this deck, and I do feel like the. 01:05:07
Stairwell is the the entry is just very massive. 01:05:20
To me. 01:05:29
I wish that they that we could. 01:05:38
You know, see other iterations of how they could get up into that unit. 01:05:41
Private view shed, of course, is not protected. We all know that. 01:05:52
Light is an issue. We could. 01:05:58
We could ask for. 01:06:05
A. What is that Sun Solar study? 01:06:09
We could. 01:06:16
Make a recommendation for. 01:06:21
Opaque railings. 01:06:25
I can appreciate the owner and contractor trying to expedite the process, but we have to. We have one chance to get this right and 01:06:33
it's today. 01:06:41
Unless we ask them for a redesign and come back. So I think we need to take all the time that we need. 01:06:51
In order to. 01:06:58
Make sure we don't make a mistake because this is going to out. This home will outlive all of us here. 01:07:00
That's all I. 01:07:09
I have for now. 01:07:09
Thank you. I agree with Miss Boyle in her comments and I do think it's important to deliberate thoroughly here and to try to get 01:07:18
this right. The one thing I did want to add to my prior comments is that there just is a lot of space in the yard and so. 01:07:28
I do think there's plenty of opportunity here to redesign it. It's like. 01:07:38
It's not certainly not my job or am I capable of doing that, but I do think there is a lot a wide Ave. here for creativity in 01:07:43
order to. 01:07:49
Hopefully meet the demands of the homeowner and also. 01:07:56
Comply with the guidelines specifically 7. The other point that I think we mentioned, we talked about a little bit earlier is that 01:08:02
from my understanding, the prior deck was kind of in the middle of the. 01:08:10
Of the north facing elevation. So you know it has been my understanding the way I viewed to see the plans that it certainly has 01:08:18
been expanded out towards the neighbor all the way to the property line I. 01:08:25
Which is the set back. 01:08:34
So yeah, I think that that's certainly problematic. 01:08:36
Thank you. 01:08:41
Yeah, I I do think this is complex. So we have a parcel, this particular property with interfacing zoning. So to the southern side 01:08:45
it's R1. 01:08:51
I I will acknowledge in regards to the positioning of the stairwell. This is a duplex and so they are trying to design around that 01:08:59
and this stairwell will be servicing 1/2 of the home. 01:09:07
Also in regards to the renders and the accuracy this acknowledging right that it's correct, they are portrayed with blue sky 01:09:17
behind, but I would also comment. 01:09:25
Comment that they are presented at the level of the home and not from the street level. 01:09:34
Which is a much lower elevation and you can barely see you can't see the the ground level. 01:09:42
From the actual sidewalk. So while it is a little maybe not deceiving with the render, it's we're also looking at it front and 01:09:49
center as if we were in the backyard of this property and not from the street like pedestrians walking by. 01:09:57
And. 01:10:08
This. 01:10:11
The neighbor with the complaints does appear their home was remodeled up to the fence line up to, you know, within inches of the 01:10:13
fence line. 01:10:20
In the last 20 years or so, and I'm not sure if it was the current owners or the owners before. 01:10:28
But that reduced set back. 01:10:35
To inches is really. 01:10:39
You know, kind of outside the control of of. 01:10:43
Of this property of 206 Lobos and while I'm typically pro survey. 01:10:47
It it appears, I'm not sure what other information we would glean. Other we might discover that that the fences. 01:10:53
You know, maybe that's misplaced and maybe the the neighbors on Wood St. built onto their property line. It's kind of unclear, but 01:11:04
so I guess I'm comfortable with the given the proximity to the to the other structure with respecting the UH. 01:11:12
Setbacks of five feet. Just documenting that and ensuring that that's at least five feet. 01:11:22
From the from the fence there, which I'm assuming is what the this it's not quite the property. 01:11:29
We're describing that as a property line here on this survey sketch. Not really a survey. 01:11:35
But I do wonder and I would like to bring it to the to the board and we are, we do respect accessibility needs and understand. 01:11:42
That's very understandable. I do wonder if this design does warrant additional design development considering it. So it looks like 01:11:49
it was kind of drafted and presented. 01:11:56
By the previous designer that and then Mr. Gish inherited this and I do wonder if. 01:12:05
Additional design development might reveal a better configuration, and it might not. 01:12:14
But given kind of the amount of public input and. 01:12:20
I'll say my initial read on it. It did appear a little out of scale and I couldn't quite figure what what what was bothering me 01:12:27
about it, but it does protrude a little bit. 01:12:33
But I understand that I work backwards. I'm like, well it's a duplex. It's accessibility. You need access in case of fire. 01:12:40
And I would also honor staff's interpretation of the code in terms of the five foot set back for the first story. 01:12:50
So with that, I'm just wondering how members feel. 01:13:01
So hearing all of this, where I'm landing is I'm satisfied with staff's answers with regard to the survey and with regard to the 01:13:06
how they've addressed the zoning issues and the non, the purported nonconformities or the expansion of nonconformities. I'm 01:13:11
satisfied with those answers. 01:13:17
And I did review all of the municipal codes before we came in here as well. 01:13:23
Some reason I do that for fun. 01:13:29
I. 01:13:32
I'm not comfortable approving this project as planned. 01:13:33
I'm certainly open to approving a project that addresses the current owners needs. I don't think a light survey is necessary 01:13:37
because they actually have like almost two stories of greenery in that little 3 foot section. So they're already kind of 01:13:44
addressing that part. And I was and thank you for correcting me. You're right, the balcony does expand towards the property owner. 01:13:50
I I was wrong in that. So I. 01:13:57
There's and as you know as I think the comments reflected, there's plenty of open real estate on this lot to expand the footprint 01:14:04
of this this. 01:14:09
House, or this duplex rather, but I. 01:14:15
I to me it's at most, most importantly for me it's the stairs. I just to me it's just it's just not neighborly to put stairs right 01:14:20
on the back fence like that. And where I would hope that ingress and egress in a way that met accessibility codes could be met 01:14:27
somewhere else in the plan. 01:14:34
So I'm not willing to support the project today, but I'm certainly open to seeing a re imagination of this project in the future. 01:14:43
I I agree. And I I guess what's not sitting well with me is it the I am not a fan of remodels that look like a remodel ever. 01:14:52
So to me, the stairs look like an afterthought. We designed the inside of the building and oops, now we need to figure out where 01:15:04
we're going to put these stairs. And it's going to be noise pollution for the neighbor. You know, who knows? 01:15:13
Who's gonna live there down the line with, you know could I have little kids who love running up and down stairs and? 01:15:23
Um, anyway, I'm I I agree with you. 01:15:31
The I could entertain. 01:15:36
A redesign? 01:15:40
Well said, both of you. I'm in complete agreement. Nothing further, Todd. 01:15:46
Well, looks like the consensus is to propose that this item be continued. 01:15:56
And just yes Sir. 01:16:06
I think kind of like we did last week, I suppose we could, because this is, this has to be, this has to go to the Planning 01:16:08
Commission, right? So either should we give the applicant the option to either? 01:16:14
Come back with a redesign or we would recommend denial and. 01:16:20
And Chair Bornstein, as I may provide some assistance. I think you have a couple of of different pathways that you can consider 01:16:25
today. It sounds like the main issue is the exterior stairway. 01:16:31
It it sounds to staff as though perhaps the rest of the project is acceptable to the board, so you may want to consider. 01:16:39
A recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission, with a condition that the applicant look at redesigning the exterior 01:16:49
stairs in order to move them away from the rear property line or to avoid. 01:16:56
Potential impacts to the rear neighbor. 01:17:06
Otherwise, if you would like to continue, if if the board would like to actually see what the redesign looks like, you could then 01:17:09
continue it and ask them to come back to you. 01:17:14
OK. 01:17:20
I So my comment on that to my colleagues is that. 01:17:22
It's I personally, I'm not sure that it's just the stairs for me. I don't know whether. 01:17:27
I think I would have to see what a reimagined design look like to see if it complied and comported with. 01:17:35
The architectural review guidelines, specifically number 7. And so even if the stairs were, let's say, move to the other side. 01:17:44
It's still unclear to me whether that first story abutting, even if it's in compliance with the code, is still. 01:17:54
In compliance with the guidelines. 01:18:04
I'll echo that point. I'm not just comfortable with the with the direction and here's why because it turns out I was mistaken and 01:18:08
now this point the plan does call for the balcony to extend right up to the near the property line where we're on to the set back. 01:18:15
And I think if we look at the rendering that's the example given in the review guidelines and guideline #7, you know they say you 01:18:22
know don't do that so. 01:18:29
Again, I'm extremely sympathetic to the homeowners desire to improve their their home so that it suits their current needs and and 01:18:38
I want to facilitate that as best as I can here. But I just don't think it this project comes close to matching the guidelines 01:18:45
that we're supposed to follow and it certainly doesn't. 01:18:51
As a matter of personal preference, the aesthetic I think is is not up to the standards of what we're trying to do here in Pacific 01:18:59
Grove. 01:19:03
So I guess maybe what we can do is have a robust conversation about what I mean. I'll step back. 01:19:10
I'm not comfortable. 01:19:18
Giving recommendations to the Planning Commission, I would like to keep this at the board level. Our board so my recommendation. 01:19:22
Would be that we all come up with. 01:19:33
Some design ideas, things for them to think of. So the stairs maybe we, you know in our guidelines they talk about wedding caking 01:19:38
where you have a step back and then and I am a fan of that versus just a big old tall. 01:19:48
Massive. 01:19:58
Expanse of a wall. So we could talk about something like that. We could talk about, you know, relocation of the stairs. 01:20:01
We could talk about. 01:20:08
If they end up keeping a balcony there, we could discuss a. 01:20:11
Some sort of privacy screening, whether that's an opaque glass or something of that nature. 01:20:19
I respect that. I say let's not get in the way of the designer in the sense of let's let them. We've already told them this isn't 01:20:28
going to work. They might come back and decide to turn the addition 90°. 01:20:34
Right. Creating much more space between them and the wind dorfs and utilizing their open space and achieving the same square 01:20:41
footage and perhaps achieving a better egress outcome as well. I'm thinking, I'm wondering if for the record we need to have our, 01:20:49
and maybe I'm incorrect, but it seems as though in the past we've had our motion basically say these are the things that we're not 01:20:56
thrilled with. So we're not redesigning it, but we're telling them. 01:21:04
This is kind of what we want to see, or this is what we don't want to see. 01:21:12
Does that make sense? Sure it does. 01:21:15
This is only my second meeting as a board member, but I've been through this process twice and so I've, I've been on the other end 01:21:19
of that. And this is not moving a window or you know, I think this is like a more of a fundamental redesign effort here. So I 01:21:25
just, I would hate to prescribe some things that would put limitations on a designer's ability to come up with a great solution, 01:21:32
right. I agree. Yeah. And if I may. 01:21:38
What you're looking at is. 01:21:47
Really. Exactly what you're saying. You're you're. 01:21:49
Trying to describe why you do not feel that it fits and it really isn't the job of the architectural review board to design the 01:21:52
project for them. So you you've made it clear why you think it's not fitting and I think if you could match those up with with. I 01:21:59
know so far you've you've mentioned guideline #7 if there are others that you wanted to match up with and then describe why those 01:22:06
are the things that are helpful for someone to moving forward. 01:22:14
I am an add guideline 28 to that the addition should complement and balance the overall form, mass and composition of the existing 01:22:22
building. But again, this is this is complex because being a duplex right? It's this uh. 01:22:30
Addition on its. 01:22:39
Own with the duplex or that side of the duplex might look more in scale, but I think with the attached. 01:22:43
Attached to this other side, it just looks a little disjointed. 01:22:52
Oh, I completely agree. I think the stair looks commercial and not residential. 01:23:01
Or at least more large scale multifamily than we would see in a duplex. And I'm also concerned with the. 01:23:05
The uh. 01:23:16
The second floor extension right to the set back but I I could get over that one if I think the massing of the the stair was 01:23:18
resolved because quite frankly it's the the the issue with the balcony is not as it was pointed out by staff. It's not it's not 01:23:25
the current property owners problem it's really the non conforming property to the rear that makes it a bit uncomfortable and 01:23:32
that's that's a burden that shouldn't be put on the applicant so. 01:23:39
I think I could get over the balcony at the end of the day. It's really just how it's configured with that stair. 01:23:47
Yeah, I I agree with that and that one comment I'll make with the revised letter from the attorney from the neighbor. It's not 01:23:55
clear if this picture from the 2nd floor balcony from 206 Wood St. I. 01:24:02
I'm sorry, 207 would is what the revised polls. 01:24:10
Or the IT appears to be the first iteration, so it might read a little bit larger than it should in this in this production. And 01:24:16
the photos from the family rooms really are looking into the robos their backyard, so really this structure would. 01:24:27
Would provide more privacy. 01:24:39
In that regard. 01:24:43
I think. 01:24:49
A lot of excellent points have been made and I echo them again. 01:24:50
I just have one I think final comment, hopefully final comment just to piggyback off of the other members here and that is that I 01:24:54
I typically. 01:24:59
And sympathetic to the notion of, well, it's it's the property owners property, and if they're in conform, if they're conforming 01:25:05
with the code, then that for the most part should be fine. It's. 01:25:12
Harder for me to. 01:25:20
Accept the case here in this instance, particularly with respect to guideline 7, when there is just so much available space to 01:25:25
work with. And so it does. I'm less sympathetic here to a design that abuts. 01:25:34
Right to be set back. 01:25:44
In these circumstances, so just putting that out there for my personal view. So if I just to to move this along, then I think 01:25:48
'cause we have pretty good consensus here is it? 01:25:53
Do we ask the applicant to with? 01:25:59
Draw the application? Or is it required that we actually deny the application? 01:26:01
What should we do? 01:26:07
We have the option to continue it to the next ARB. You could recommend denial based on those things to the Planning Commission. 01:26:09
They could even with that recommendation, they could still go to the Planning Commission. Without with that recommendation, the 01:26:15
Planning Commission could decide whether or not you guys. 01:26:22
Are correct or they agree with you. I think if you had the applicant, you can give them the option if you like to say, hey, do you 01:26:31
guys, do you want to move forward and come back to us with a different design? 01:26:37
And continue. Or you can. 01:26:45
You can do either one. That's your call. At that point we will ask the applicant, but I would like to add one more guideline. 01:26:48
I think 34 was the one I was looking for. I think 28 could apply. I don't have as big of an issue with the addition as the stairs, 01:26:57
so guideline 28 was in reference to the addition should complement and balance over a form. Guideline 34 the scale of other 01:27:04
architectural details, porches, roof, overhang, space, chimneys should be appropriate to the size and proportion of the building. 01:27:12
Chair, if I may, I think I. 01:27:21
To a lesser degree, but but I think I would also just jot down guideline 5 and six as well. 01:27:24
I believe those were raised in. 01:27:34
Letter submitted. 01:27:37
By the neighbor, so. 01:27:39
And I agree with them again, to a lesser extent. 01:27:42
The applicant like to come up and. 01:27:49
Yes. So we have a couple options. So we could continue it. Would you like to do that or if we do recommend denial, then you can go 01:27:58
to the Planning Commission with a denial from the ARB. 01:28:04
I'm sorry, I just need to interject here for a moment. 01:28:11
Per state law, we cannot recommend denial on a housing project. 01:28:16
That complies with all of the objective development standards, meaning height, setbacks, things of that nature. So I think you're 01:28:22
in better standing in terms of asking the applicant to make some redesign efforts to address the issues that you've already 01:28:30
identified per the architectural guidelines. But I would, I would caution away from any sort of discussion of a denial. Excellent. 01:28:39
That's was my presence anyways. Was to service redesigned. Yeah, yeah, I'd be happy to. 01:28:47
I think that we can fit it in there and keep it the code between the existing stair small staircase going up to the second unit to 01:28:57
two O 6 actually. 01:29:02
We could fit it in there. That would remove that whole. 01:29:09
Part there and I think would be open to. 01:29:13
Maybe what the neighbors would like with We thought the small stainless wires would be. 01:29:19
The best, but I mean, I see the other side of it. They don't want that. Well, it's not where Hard sat on. 01:29:26
Wires or anything I think they'd be open to. 01:29:33
What you recommend or open for discussion? Any right? 01:29:37
I think we also need to. 01:29:45
We need to have a. 01:29:50
A site on when we're gonna yes that I was going to ask staff to inform you of the kind of the work back dates that you would need 01:29:52
to submit revised plans in order to properly re notice which for our next meeting is on June 11th. 01:30:01
Working back from that. 01:30:11
I think they would have to resubmit, like in a week or two. Yeah. To make it to the next Nadine's agenda, it would have to be 01:30:14
ready by when? Probably about close to two weeks, Within two weeks. 01:30:20
So we could if that's. 01:30:29
June 11th and then? 01:30:33
Been I'll give you a more specific date why I need to have them, but it'd be roughly 2 weeks and and if it doesn't work then we 01:30:36
will just. 01:30:40
Move on to the, I mean we'll we'll, yeah we can we have the option of going to the next meeting after that. So yeah that was my 01:30:45
concern that it was. 01:30:49
OK, very good. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to make a motion to continue? 01:30:54
Yeah, I'm going to continue this item to the next meeting. 01:31:02
2nd. 01:31:08
All in favor. 01:31:10
Aye, aye. 01:31:12
Right motion passes. 01:31:13
Motion carries with member Sutton abstaining or recused. 01:31:17
Thank you. And I'm sorry to interject again, Chair Bornstein. As the board member returns back to her seat, staff has been 01:31:28
notified that there is a museum board meeting in the chambers starting at 5:00. OK. And so we need to be able to wrap up by about 01:31:36
four 45450 at the latest. 01:31:43
I think we can do it. I just wanted to let you know. Thank you for that. 01:31:53
OK, we will move right along to item C and before I read it does any well, I'll read the title and then it's architectural permit 01:31:58
2-3 Dash 0299311 Lighthouse Ave. Does any board member need to recuse himself? Yes chair. I live within 500 feet of the project so 01:32:05
I will recuse myself. 01:32:11
Thank you. Thank you, Member Brooks. 01:32:18
Yeah. 01:32:30
We have the. 01:32:35
Staff report please. 01:32:37
Thank you, Chair Bernstein. 01:32:40
Excuse me? 01:32:59
I don't have my note pages here, however I think I can go ahead and just do this. 01:33:02
Quickly for the benefit of the of the board here and the public and the applicant and. 01:33:09
This is architectural permit AP 230299 at 311 Lighthouse Ave. 01:33:17
The existing project site is a an approximately. 01:33:28
67153 square foot lot located at the northwest corner of 73 7th St. and Lighthouse Ave. 01:33:33
In the 1st edition neighborhood of Pacific Grove. 01:33:44
And the property is currently developed with an 18136 square foot duplex. There was some. 01:33:53
Inconsistency in the agenda report regarding the existing development on the lot, whether it was a single family residence in Adu 01:34:05
or a duplex and it is a duplex or two main dwelling units. 01:34:10
The proposed project would redevelop the site. 01:34:17
Or demolish the duplex and redevelop the site with a 26193 square foot two-story single family residence with an attached 520 01:34:22
square foot garage and a 799 square foot one story accessory dwelling unit on the lower level. The residents would also include an 01:34:30
approximately 1300 square foot roof deck above the lower level. 01:34:38
In the gross floor area for the main residence and garage would total 3213 square feet and the of course the gross floor area for 01:34:46
the Adu would not. 01:34:53
Count toward the total allowed gross floor area for the property. 01:35:03
This slide shows the elevation as viewed from 7th St. 01:35:12
And staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board approve the project subject to the findings, Conditions of Approval and 01:35:21
Sequa Class 2 Categorical Exemption. And this concludes staff presentation and I'm available for questions. Thank you. If there 01:35:29
are no questions for staff, we will invite the applicant up. 01:35:36
Welcome. 01:35:47
Thank you to members of the ARB and staff. I'm Catherine Cranon. I'm the owner of 311 Lighthouse. And Full disclosure, I also own 01:35:49
the four unit building that spans 214 six to 2:07 Seventh. You might have wondered why did someone not put a third story on this 01:35:56
building and now you know why? Because it has two. It has a 5 unit building on one property line at three O 7 lighthouse. That's 01:36:03
building and then my building right above it. So the Jennings built the property in 1957. It was never occupied as a residence. 01:36:10
They used it as a family vacation. 01:36:17
Place once or twice a year and then when they decided to sell the property they called B because I've known since 2002 and my 01:36:24
original plan was to rent this as just fix it up but lifting on it rent it. But the structural reports came back quite 01:36:31
disappointing especially it was built by the homeowners but the the roof beams were too wide and not red Redwood and all that one 01:36:37
thing led to another and I went into a major redesign. The bad news beyond being able to rent the building as is, is that the 01:36:43
soils report came back saying that it's loose. 01:36:50
There is no point being staircase up to that because it's another. 01:38:10
Yeah, so I had the little we call them the gutter box ease, you know that was given a little bit modern aesthetic and you know we 01:38:15
did about some considered quite a few options but that's it's I actually have pictures if we have more time. 01:38:22
All right. We will invite any public comment for this project. 01:38:57
Is there any online or in the room? 01:39:02
We have one hand raised. 01:39:05
All right. 01:39:11
I actually, let's invite the gentleman that is in the room up to the podium first, yes. 01:39:16
All right. Welcome. 01:39:34
You started the time already? My name is Robert Sanuki and I live at 214 7th St. I've lived there for 35 years. 01:39:44
Two houses up from this project you can see the story polls and. 01:39:54
I would like to ask I talked to. 01:40:01
I talked to Joseph this morning and he said this was going to be the only public meeting and I would like to suggest that they put 01:40:07
a sidewalk coming up 7th St. 01:40:14
Which is city property. 01:40:22
And somehow that retaining wall was built about 25 years ago. I don't know if there was a that's on their property and you can see 01:40:27
the other. 01:40:32
Property behind that retaining wall. And they built a The applicant built a wall right up against the curb. This makes it hard to 01:40:38
park there. It makes it hard to unload without a sidewalk. 01:40:46
People also walk down the middle of the street because there is no sidewalk on the other side and a car coming around the corner. 01:40:54
It does make it. 01:40:59
Dangerous. That doesn't happen every day, but there are cars that come around that corner at a very high speed. So again, I'd like 01:41:05
to go back and revisit the other property behind this property which is owned by the same people that we called. That was when 01:41:12
John Keel was working in Monterey and Monterey had the. 01:41:19
Permit process there and I don't know what happened but. 01:41:29
They got to build it the way they want and it's not very well maintained as far as being able to park there and they keep topping 01:41:37
the Monterey Pine for the view. So I'm going to go turn that off. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. 01:41:44
All right. Any comments online? 01:41:53
Of Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. 01:42:00
Thank you Chair and members of the board. Well this is one other one of those questions that I had that I was asking about is it 01:42:05
is the current a duplex or is it you know a single family with an Adu and as far as what they plan to do, well I understand and. 01:42:14
It's not really going to make much difference except for things like a sidewalk and retaining walls and that structure that needs 01:42:24
the infrastructure that needs to go behind it. 01:42:30
And the other thing is they are certainly maxing out every inch of that and on the data sheet I still could not ascertain what 01:42:36
percentage of required permitted that that was cut off of the data sheet as well as the notes and other. 01:42:46
Information and I would really appreciate it if staff could fit what is supposed to be on a data sheet into those little boxes. 01:42:57
Because that's what gives the public some information and some insight into projects also and how they comply or don't or how they 01:43:06
Max things out to the absolute most. And of course this one is getting the most it can out of a single family home and with a very 01:43:17
large attached Adu because obviously that doesn't count. So all these little things but a data sheet I find is very important. 01:43:27
To have with readable information and to have it known. And yes I will say that Mister Sidor answered me back today from my query 01:43:38
from before of whether it was a duplex or. 01:43:46
On a single family home with an Adu, which is you know? 01:43:57
Let's have a consistent report. Thank you very much. 01:44:01
Thank you for your comments. 01:44:06
If there are no other public. 01:44:08
Commenters, I think no other hands raised. Excellent. All right, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for 01:44:11
discussion. Would like to begin. 01:44:15
I can. 01:44:21
I think this is a great project. I think it fits entirely within the design aesthetic of the neighborhood. I think it's well 01:44:23
planned out and I have no reason not to support it. 01:44:27
You know, entirely. I do have one question for staff though, just because I do believe there is a question that. 01:44:32
The staff does. Isn't it the case the staff does consider whether to require a sidewalk on a new project and if so, was that part 01:44:39
of staff consideration and and disposition? 01:44:45
So. 01:44:52
Board member Whether or not a sidewalk would be required would be determined during the building permit phase, and that is based 01:44:58
on a valuation of the project. 01:45:04
And if it reaches a certain valuation, then a sidewalk or sidewalk improvements may be required. 01:45:12
Any other comments? 01:45:23
I think it looks lovely. 01:45:26
I would imagine that they're going to have to do a sidewalk. 01:45:28
But that'll be determined. 01:45:33
I have no other comments. 01:45:37
Yeah, nicely handled. Nice improvement from what's there. 01:45:40
Yeah, I concur. The board members, I do just want to acknowledge yet the ADO. You know, it doesn't count against square footage, 01:45:44
but we can't really ignore it, like the visual impact of the massing sometimes. But this particular context for this property, the 01:45:51
vantage point from the street, it's, it's very well positioned. 01:45:58
And. 01:46:07
Nice project SO. 01:46:09
We like to entertain a motion for approval motion to approve the item. 01:46:11
Second all in favor, Aye, Aye, aye. 01:46:15
Motion carries unanimously, or motion carries with US member Brooks recusing himself. 01:46:20
And with that, I will adjourn the meeting. And our next meeting is June 11th at 4:46 PM. Meeting adjourned. 01:46:27
Tried to make it 4:45. 01:46:41
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. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Architectural Review Board meeting. It's May 14th. I will now call this meeting to 00:00:21
order. Can we get a roll call, please? 00:00:25
Chair Bornstein here. 00:00:34
Commissioner, sorry, a board member Boyle here, board member Sutton. 00:00:36
Secretary Brooks, board member Huff here, and I apologize. I believe it's Vice Chair Boyle. 00:00:43
We're all here. We have a quorum. 00:00:52
Thank you. 00:00:55
Would anybody like to make a motion moving on to approval of the agenda? 00:00:58
2nd. 00:01:05
All in favor. 00:01:06
Aye. 00:01:08
Motion passes unanimously. 00:01:11
All right. We'll move down to board item number three, board and staff announcements. We'll start with council liaison 00:01:13
announcements. And today we have Mayor Peak with us. 00:01:18
Good afternoon, Chair Bornstein, and thank you, board members for your service. So I was asked to speak for Council Member Debbie 00:01:29
Beck, who wasn't able to make it this afternoon on just a couple of short things. 00:01:36
I hope you all get a chance to meet our new city Manager, Matt Morganson. He he's on at another meeting right now, otherwise I'm 00:01:44
sure he would be here. 00:01:51
And. 00:01:58
It's just what's coming up. We're about to kick off the budget. You know, our fiscal year starts July 1st, and tomorrow night a 00:02:00
council meeting will be talking about a capital improvement program. It's pretty bare bones, but. 00:02:09
In June 2 meetings we'll be going over the entire budget and maybe we can squeak in a few better, a few additional projects here 00:02:19
for our wonderful city. 00:02:25
Right. That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. 00:02:32
And I apologize, I skipped over item 3, which was board and staff announcements and that was we jumped right to #4. Are there any 00:02:35
board announcements? 00:02:39
All right, seeing none. Any staff announcements? 00:02:47
No staff notes. Thank you. 00:02:51
OK. We will move on to item number five, public comment. Is there any public comment for items not on the agenda? 00:02:53
Start with comments online. 00:03:05
With Inga Lorenzen Dahmer. 00:03:08
Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. 00:03:14
I had. 00:03:20
A. When I went to the city front page of the city where I usually go to, to Oh yes, we have a meeting today because I get the 00:03:22
advance agendas, which I'm glad because on today's front page it has the whole linked, the whole packet that downloads for the 00:03:30
agenda it it doesn't have the linked version. 00:03:37
And of course I'm on the newsletter advance, you know, so I get it. But and that is the linked agenda, which makes it easy. But 00:03:45
when you have a front page, anyone going to a front page of our city website and sees that that long packet is is in there and 00:03:52
they've got to go through the whole thing to find what they're looking for is going to be discouraged. Discouraged right off the 00:04:00
bat I think. And usually we have the linked one on the front page. So I would appreciate. 00:04:08
If. 00:04:17
The staff could attend to that and put the right one up. 00:04:18
And then I have one other item and that is that I sent two correction. I I sent 2 letters off to the CDD after the agenda was 00:04:23
posted. One was a correction and one was asking for clarification. And I got an automatic response back that had nothing to do 00:04:31
with my question whatsoever. It was just, oh, if you're looking for a permit or you can do this or you know, just an automatic 00:04:39
response. 00:04:46
And is a member of the public. I kind of find that unacceptable. Umm. 00:04:54
That I find an unresponsive staff. Thank you very much. 00:05:00
For your comments and your feedback. 00:05:09
Any other hands raised their hands online, right? Seeing none in the audience, we'll move on to our consent agenda. 00:05:15
Starting with #7A the draft minutes, I'd like to just acknowledge a few corrections that we have. 00:05:26
So from the draft minutes from April 9th. 00:05:36
I'll just read them out for the sake of time. Here we will be adding. 00:05:41
Under Consent agenda Item A, we'll be adding the verbiage action upon motion by Secretary Brooks, seconded by member Huff. The 00:05:50
board voted to approve the consent agenda motion carried 40, with one absent. 00:05:58
By the following roll call Vote eyes Anna Bornstein, Scott Brooks, Christy Sutton, and David Huff. 00:06:08
They were No's None and absent Sarah Boyle. 00:06:14
In our next correction will be under the regular agenda under Item B for architectural permit AP23-0043 for one 126 Austin Ave. 00:06:22
The correction will be under eyes it was stated Sarah Boyle that will be updated to Christy Sutton and under absent the minutes 00:06:32
read Sarah Boyle and that will be excuse me, the minutes read Christy Sutton. That'll be updated to Sarah Boyle. 00:06:42
Under Absent. 00:06:52
And the final correction will be under Item 11A under Presentations. The following verbage will be added that the Board received a 00:06:55
presentation from Mr. Perrault on Community Goals and the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2425. 00:07:03
Can I get a motion to approve the minutes as amended? 00:07:14
So moved. 00:07:18
All right, all in favor. 00:07:21
I. 00:07:24
I'm going to abstain because I did not have a chance to watch the meeting and I was absent. Fair enough. 00:07:27
OK, motion. 00:07:38
Carries. 00:07:39
All right. We'll move on to the public hearing portion of our meeting, starting with item A, architectural permit AP23-0208 or 127 00:07:42
Forest Ave. May we have a staff report? 00:07:49
Yes, thank you Chair Boyle and board members. 00:08:00
This is 127 Forest for a recommendation to the Planning Commission for Architectural Permit 23-0208 on March 12th. This was first 00:08:05
presented to the ARB and the the Architectural Review Board found that the project did not meet the Architectural Review 00:08:13
Guidelines and the project was continued to. 00:08:21
Today, May 14th, on April 11th, the applicant had submitted revisions which you are reviewing today. Can I get the next couple of 00:08:29
slides please? 00:08:34
One more please. 00:08:42
The existing conditions This is a undeveloped lot in the coastal zone. It is 1912 square feet. It's an interior parcel located 00:08:46
between 17th and 18th streets. The site is in the coastal zone, archaeological zone and in the city's area of special biological 00:08:54
significance. Phase one preliminary archaeological assessment found that no indication of pre contact of cultural sites, features 00:09:02
or artifacts. However, we do put a condition of approval. 00:09:10
Which will be on the permit for inadvertent discovery for human remains and cultural artifacts. The next slide. 00:09:19
The proposed project is the construction of a new three story single family residence. It's 1322 square feet with a 234 square 00:09:32
foot attached garage. There's also a 729 square foot accessory dwelling unit and the next couple of slides are the elevations of 00:09:39
this give you a second to take a look at those for the public to see them. The one on the street is a Street View. That's the 00:09:46
composite with the. 00:09:53
Hose house. 00:10:01
In between actually another proposed house and the existing if you see the red one with a hipped roof. 00:10:03
Next slide please. 00:10:10
Staff recommendation is that the Architectural Review Board recommend that the recommend to the Planning Commission the approval 00:10:14
of Architectural Permit 23-0208 with the findings and Conditions of approval and the Class 3 Categorical Exemption for new 00:10:22
Construction of or conversion of Small small structures and that is my staff report. If you have any questions, I'm here. 00:10:31
Thank you. There's no questions for staff. We'd like to invite the applicant up if you'd like to speak. 00:10:41
We'll have 10 minutes. 00:10:46
Welcome back. Hi, I'm Bill Method, the architect for the project. The owners are also here. So we went back and we took your 00:10:48
recommendations into consideration. We switched the direction of the of the Gable. We wanted to still honor the not impeding the 00:10:58
view from the one owner's other house. So we we kept the the Gable back with us with a small. 00:11:08
Yep, I guess in front of it and. 00:11:20
Kept a cross Gable in order to allow access to the third floor from the one side. So other than that I think we met most if not 00:11:26
all of your. 00:11:33
Requests. Any questions? 00:11:40
I have a quick question. Can I ask for clarity on a three? You still have the window in the garage, which I know had been brought 00:11:43
up by the board couple months ago, but I don't see it on those perspectives. I forgot to take it off the floor plan. Thank you. I 00:11:49
took it off the elevation. Yeah. 00:11:55
All right. I think that's it. I'll invite you back up if we have more. 00:12:04
Now we'll open up public comment for this project. Is there anyone in the room or online that wishes to speak about this item? 00:12:10
Lisa Gianni online. 00:12:20
Thank you. 00:12:24
I don't remember if I spoke about this last time, but I didn't have my map if I did. 00:12:27
And in any case, I wanted to say that the standard inadvertent discovery language is not appropriate in an archaeologically 00:12:35
sensitive area such as the coastal zone and in this case. 00:12:41
The. 00:12:50
I have a copy that archaeologist Gary Bruschini gave me of a map of the area with all the designated archaeological sites, and 00:12:52
this is right next door to one that's been designated. And of course not every site has been studied, but the fact that no 00:12:59
evidence of archaeological artifacts were found on the surface of the property or even slightly underground, I didn't read the 00:13:07
report. 00:13:14
Maybe it wasn't there, but in any case, standard archaeological discovery language is not appropriate and there should be at least 00:13:23
a tribal monitor, if not an archaeological monitor, and our. 00:13:31
The city's draft archaeological protocol has gone astray again, so it's been 3 1/2 years now since the city. 00:13:40
Contracted for an archaeological protocol and it will be much easier then, but I think the fact that this is in the coastal zone. 00:13:50
And an archaeologically sensitive area. 00:14:01
And next to an actual designated site just indicates that that the standard inadvertent discovery language is not suitable, it's 00:14:05
not appropriate, and there needs to be a. 00:14:12
What do you call her condition of approval for? 00:14:22
Tribal monitoring, if not archaeological monitoring. Thank you. 00:14:25
Thank you for your comments. 00:14:33
Welcome. 00:14:35
My name is Patsy Volpe. I live at 126 Grand Ave. which is directly behind the property in question. 00:14:37
And my neighbor Will probably already hates us, but the first complaint when the first pictures came out were because of the 00:14:44
windows that overlook our backyard and into our home. And sadly, from what I can understand on the new plan, it looks like not 00:14:52
only are there more windows, there is a balcony. 00:14:59
On the backside of the building. 00:15:08
The other concern is how close the story. Polls have come to our fence, which is not five feet. I know there might be different 00:15:12
rules because they've included an Adu, but it's still a massive structure towering over us and I understand something will go up 00:15:21
there, but maybe there could be a little more space between the fence and the building. 00:15:29
And the outlook for the tenants to our yard and home, if that could be changed or eliminated or put frosted glass, I don't know. 00:15:39
We're planning on some tall shrubs against the fence to eventually help with that, but. 00:15:48
You know, I know it's a huge building. We're going to lose our sunset views and our sky views, but I know that's probably not a 00:15:59
consideration, but that's what I wanted to say. 00:16:05
Thank you. Thank you. 00:16:12
Right. There's no additional public comment. Oh, welcome. 00:16:18
Hello there. My name is Stuart Newhouse. I live at 126 Forest Ave. which is directly across from the lot there, and I have watched 00:16:29
that lot be derelict for the entire 10 years I've lived there. I've looked at the plans that they have put together and I think 00:16:37
this house would very much fit into the neighborhood in the eclectic nature of what is in that neighborhood. There are already a 00:16:44
couple of towering houses on either side of those units. 00:16:51
Both at I believe it's a 124. You know, the big kind of burgundy house. There is a massive square block of the house I live in, 00:16:59
the white one, which is a giant slab of an ugliness made in the 80s. 00:17:05
So this would bring kind of like put a nice tooth in the toothless smile that is that street. 00:17:13
And I know that other people are concerned about they're going to lose views and stuff that they've had the graciousness of having 00:17:21
for so many years. But it would be really nice to have a nice house in that lot, especially for the 2 owners, because they are 00:17:28
really nice people. They deserve to have their their beautiful home in this town like the rest of us do. So hopefully, I would 00:17:35
like to see you guys approve that home as it is because it sounds like they made a lot of changes to the aesthetics to kind of. 00:17:42
Fit in so that would. 00:17:49
Thank you. Thank you. 00:17:52
Welcome, I'm Bruce McGlynn. I live next door at 133 Forest and. 00:18:06
There's I knew the lady that like, like Stewart was saying the house was in pretty bad condition for many years. And it. 00:18:13
I don't know how you'd be able to put anything. If you're going to put something that's going to be smaller or shorter or anything 00:18:26
else, it would look out. It would look out of sorts. I think. I really think that they put a lot of planning into what they did 00:18:33
and a lot of thought. I I really appreciate the concepts of how the thousands is done. Unlike the dandelion, dandelion house 00:18:40
across the street that people think is is a historic house all the time. Cracks me up, but. 00:18:47
It's, uh, it's it's. I think it's well worth the effort. Thank you. 00:18:55
Thank you. 00:19:00
Any other public comment on this item? 00:19:06
Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:19:11
I would like to begin. 00:19:21
I'll go ahead. Is this on? 00:19:24
Umm, I thought I would just address. 00:19:28
I think we spoke about this last time we saw this project that that. 00:19:32
The IT looks like a balcony on the back, but it's just housing the mechanical area, so I just wanted to let those lovely neighbors 00:19:39
on the back know that there aren't going to be people on that balcony. 00:19:47
That's going to be equipment and it's going to be kind of just hiding the equipment if I remember correctly. 00:19:56
I really like the changes that have been made to the roof line. I think it. 00:20:04
I think it. 00:20:13
They've they've done, they've done justice to the roofline in my opinion. I think it looks much better than it did before. I still 00:20:18
am not a lover of the entry and the rooftop deck above it, but I I understand the concept, I understand the lot coverage issues 00:20:29
that they're dealing with. But I just wanted to say that I'm very pleased with the way the roofline has turned out. 00:20:40
That's all for now. 00:20:51
I can go next. I will listen to the meeting from March yesterday, just to remind myself what all happened and I hadn't been at 00:20:55
that meeting, so it's my second. 00:20:59
Second time listening to it, so also very pleased with the changes to echo Sarah's comment. The mechanical wall to hopefully help 00:21:05
put the neighbors behind it ease and I'm good with the entry. I like the way you readdressed it with the planter boxes. I feel 00:21:12
like that softened it a bit and certainly understand the challenges, so I'm pleased. 00:21:20
I actually went to the site twice. I went through it first time and and was kind of marveling at how little there was to work with 00:21:36
and started to plan some more and went back again and I think the design team is done an excellent job. I think that for what they 00:21:44
have to work with with regard to space, I think that what they have designed here fits entirely within the character of that block 00:21:52
and the homes that are on it and it fits the design aesthetic as far as I'm concerned of all the architectural guidelines. 00:22:00
I have no issue with this project at all. 00:22:08
I think, yeah, I'd like to echo my colleagues comments. I think they agree with them. I think that the. 00:22:15
I think that. 00:22:24
The applicant went back and the plan is certainly much improved and. 00:22:26
They heard our guideline requests and certainly conformed to them and I think there was a, yeah, a great deal of improvement done 00:22:31
on this project. I I would invite maybe through the chair the applicant back up maybe just to address the comments raised by the 00:22:38
public, just to confirm, I think what Sarah said was accurate, but it might be better coming from the applicant just to confirm 00:22:44
that. 00:22:50
Yeah, Bill Mefford again. Yes, that is correct that the back, what looks like a balcony is a mechanical area the the wall is to 00:23:04
shield it from view from the neighbors. It helps to, yeah. 00:23:11
To not mask, but to reduce the amount of any noise from the equipment. The equipment is going to be more silent type equipment. 00:23:18
They're actually one of the owners is a mechanical contractor up in the Bay Area anyway because the the bedrooms are right there. 00:23:25
So they're going to use as quiet of equipment as they can. But yes, that wall that creates that quote UN quote balcony is a 00:23:32
mechanical space. 00:23:39
Just one. 00:23:47
Follow up on that. I believe the other comment also referenced some additional windows. I didn't. Yeah, there there's no 00:23:48
additional windows. Great. Thank you. 00:23:52
That's all I had. Thanks. 00:23:59
Right. Well, I concur with the board here. Thank you very much for taking our feedback and and updating your design. I think the 00:24:02
reorientation of the roof line and the Gables, it just it completely just fits in with that that neighborhood. And I also noticed 00:24:10
you, you got a little, little few more square feet out of it too and it appeared in my opinion that the third floor configuration 00:24:18
was improved. I liked how the, the primary bedroom was widened in the closet. 00:24:27
Positioning and the bathroom was a little bit bigger. So I think I'm hoping it's a win. I hope you enjoy it. This design and the I 00:24:35
also noticed in the that primary bedroom that the window size was reduced a little bit which will help mitigate some privacy 00:24:43
concerns as we think we just have to acknowledge it's always complex to design in the neighborhood of this density, but this 00:24:50
street in particular can really absorb that's height and massing in my opinion. 00:24:57
And I do. 00:25:06
Except I guess the the constraints or having that Adu be allowed to be within 3 feet of the fence. You know those are the rules. 00:25:08
So it's kind of conforms to code. 00:25:14
I would like to and I also acknowledge eliminating the garage windows. I know that your neighbor will be your friend, but for 00:25:22
future owners potentially that is a good designing. 00:25:27
Change too, and I would just like to ask staff regarding the public comment about the archaeological site is my understanding. I 00:25:34
thought that we had received a report. 00:25:40
An archaeological report and maybe it was on the neighboring parcel. I just didn't know if you had any comments regarding a known 00:25:47
site or if the conditions. 00:25:53
Are sufficient as as noted in the staff report. 00:26:01
Those conditions are. 00:26:06
What was proposed, they're actually the same conditions that were placed on 1/29 I believe forest when when that was approved, 00:26:09
this was 11 parcel at one point and was split into two. And so that archaeological report covered both of those. And so the 00:26:17
conditions that went with the approved permit that's already been there was ACDP use use permit as well. 00:26:26
And and AP. 00:26:36
They're the same conditions, OK. 00:26:38
Thank you. 00:26:40
All right. With that, would anybody like to make a motion to approve? 00:26:42
I'm happy to do so. I would move that we approve this up to. 00:26:50
The Planning Commission. 00:26:57
Permit number AP23-0208 Subject of Findings, Conditions of Approval and SEQUA Guidelines Class 3 Categorical Exemption as 00:27:01
submitted. 00:27:07
I'll second that. 00:27:16
All in favor. 00:27:18
Aye. 00:27:20
Aye. 00:27:23
Motion passes unanimously. 00:27:24
Right. Thank you. 00:27:26
All right, moving on to Item B, architectural permit AP23-0346 or 206 Lobos Ave. 00:27:30
Chair, I'm gonna recuse myself from this discussion. Yes, I'm friends with one of the neighbors. OK. Thank you. 00:27:40
Some member Sutton will be recusing herself. 00:27:47
Thank you. 00:28:02
This is 206 Libras Avenues Architectural Permit Application #23-0346 and this is for recommendation to the Planning Commission for 00:28:07
approval. 00:28:12
Wanted to make a couple of notes on posting. This was meant to go on last or I think two months ago and due to the need for a use 00:28:20
permit we had to. 00:28:26
Repost and and and do mailers. The note that I wanted to make it had to do with the story polls. I had gone out to look at the 00:28:34
story polls and noticed that they were a lot. 00:28:39
Just lines throat start showing the the railings that that go through that. So I wanted to point that out to you. 00:29:25
The next slide please. 00:29:33
This is a 4186 square foot interior parcel located on the West side of Lobos Ave. between Lighthouse Ave. and Short St. and the R4 00:29:36
zoning district. 00:29:41
It is. 00:29:47
Currently developed with a 1551 square foot two-story multifamily dwelling. 00:29:49
With a 400 square foot garage, the dwelling units consists of a 451 square foot front, first floor units and an 1100 square foot 00:29:54
rear, 1st and 2nd floor unit. 00:30:00
The site is not located in the coastal zone and the property is not listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. 00:30:06
If we can move through to the. 00:30:14
Proposed project. 00:30:18
The proposed project includes the construction of a new 343 square foot first floor addition to the north side of the existing 00:30:25
residence and it would result in a 1894 square foot multifamily dwelling and that's including all of the the front and and rear 00:30:33
units. The project also includes an additional second for doorway, a new second floor rooftop terrace. 00:30:40
And a new steroid stairway leading to grade. The front exterior stairs to the South of the garage are supposed to be removed. And 00:30:49
these are the at the driveway level and at the sidewalk level to be removed for what they were calling an elevator, but it's 00:30:56
basically a lift for accessibility to the residents. 00:31:02
Can we go through? 00:31:11
The. 00:31:14
One thing that had come up if we can get to the slide of the there we go this survey, the survey that was completed originally 00:31:16
when the story polls and and the plans were given to us. 00:31:23
We did not require a survey, but due to some a neighborhood, a neighbor complaint, we wanted to make sure that the applicant had 00:31:32
the correct distance and what ended up they found was that where they had the story polls line was at 4 1/2 feet instead of five 00:31:38
feet. 00:31:43
And so the next slide they gave an update with a detail showing that they pushed the addition back the the extra, the additional 6 00:31:49
feet to make the five feet. So I want to make sure that's noted on the plans and then the next slide is that detail. 00:31:59
They're using the next slide please. 00:32:11
And one more they're using materials that are existing. These are the matching to match existing home and the staff recommends 00:32:14
that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to findings, conditions of approval and 00:32:22
Class 1 categorical exemptions for existing structures. And that is the end of my presentation and I am here for questions. 00:32:30
Any questions for staff? 00:32:40
At this time we would like to invite the applicant up. 00:32:43
If they would like to make a presentation. 00:32:47
You'll have a 10 minutes. 00:32:52
I think it has to go through staff. 00:32:59
These did end up these were a letter that came in today as part of their presentation. And it was. 00:33:03
It did end up being a part of the packet that went that went online, so I'll just give you guys the these are. 00:33:12
And I didn't look online, but I did not notice this, so I'm just going to prove for a minute if you don't. 00:33:43
And. 00:33:48
Right. We'll invite you to begin your presentation if you'd like. You have 10 minutes. So I think as far as it being skewed, we 00:34:42
had the Surveyor put reference pins and I. 00:34:49
As far as the house being skewed from the property line and sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt, but are you are you the same applicant 00:34:58
as on the plan set or? 00:35:03
OK, so you're the designer now? Yeah. Just want to clarify. Yeah. So I know there was concern if that house is skewed, if we 00:35:11
reference it from one point, it would be closer. 00:35:19
As we go out towards the edge of the project, we had multiple pin reference pins on the survey put in, so we'll make sure that we. 00:35:27
Stay two or five feet. 00:35:36
And. 00:35:42
Yeah, the only other thing about mention of the balcony on 2/02. 00:35:49
Lobos There's a balcony that. 00:35:54
Is overlooking. 00:35:59
Very similar. Well, it would be a lot more because I don't think there's any trees or anything in the way, but. 00:36:02
I think a lot of the issues are addressed in that letter. That's about what I have to offer. 00:36:10
Any questions for the applicant? 00:36:18
Through the chair I Can you explain one more time about the removal of the stairs from the street level? So there, there aren't 00:36:25
going to be any stairs, only the lift. OK, At the street from the street, there's a old set of concrete steps that go up. And 00:36:34
Randy the husband is going to need a wheelchair pretty soon. And so we're going to put a wheelchair lift in there so those old 00:36:42
steps would come out. 00:36:50
And we just put a lift in there. It'll have a similar face to the fence, so it won't be that noticeable. It'll just have a gate to 00:36:59
open up. The wheelchair will go in. It'll lift. OK, second floor. 00:37:06
And that'll be from the driveway level and the street to the first floor, yeah. 00:37:15
Yeah, yeah, it's it's just right there. It's it's actually ends up being about 6 1/2 feet. And there is a second set of stairs to 00:37:24
the there are two sets of stairs currently. OK, that was what was confusing. Yes. And the visual from the street, it almost looks 00:37:31
like it. They belong to the neighbors. They have the the stone wall there. 00:37:38
Right. Yeah. But that, that's those stairs are being replaced, Yeah. And then inside the house, there's a real staircase, which is 00:37:46
part of the issue. We're putting an elevator in there, and that's the reason for the exterior staircase on the front porch. 00:37:54
Edition is egress in case of emergency, things like that. So that'll be their only way out of something happens with the elevator 00:38:01
to get down from the second floor. 00:38:09
Defers would be. 00:38:17
Out on the balcony and that way. 00:38:20
Something like that, And the top door is existing. There's a balcony there now. 00:38:23
Do you have a question for the applicant? Remember? 00:38:29
Yeah, I do. I. 00:38:32
Following up on the stair and I understand the need for it, but. 00:38:34
Right now it comes projects out into the yard to the north and then returns to the South. Did you consider the feasibility of 00:38:37
bringing it off the balcony towards the east and then turning it 90° to the north? That way it wouldn't protrude into the yard and 00:38:43
further obscure the, you know, the kind of mass up the back of the yard right next to the existing rear yard neighbor? Yeah, we 00:38:50
looked into that and it could be revisited. You know, we're we're open to work or if we need to make that solid instead of cables 00:38:56
or something like that, but. 00:39:03
The existing staircase to the second unit. 00:39:10
Where the daughter lives, it's pretty tight right there. Coming out and going around. It blocks the windows from that unit. 00:39:13
Yeah, I understand it would block that, that one window in that unit, but I'm just wondering if that was considered as a design 00:39:24
compromise to the proposed design which creates this whole kind of managing. 00:39:31
There, it would be really tight. That was something we wanted to do because they wanted that corner where the stairs are 00:39:40
represented now. 00:39:45
Umm, for something else but. 00:39:51
It could be revisited. We can look at that. 00:39:55
It's just a redesign and more delay. And Randy's health is. 00:39:59
Not good. So we're trying to expedite everything we can. 00:40:07
Any further clarifying questions? OK. 00:40:13
Thank you. We'll invite you back up if you have any more questions. Now we'll open a public comment for this item. Are there any 00:40:17
members in the audience or online? All right. 00:40:22
Welcome. 00:40:32
Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Sadoff. I'm here on behalf of Kim and Alan Weindorf, The Neighbors to 206 Lobos. 00:40:38
The Wonders are currently opposed to the project as designed due to the to its violating zoning laws, expanding non conforming 00:40:47
uses and the privacy concerns that it creates for their property. 00:40:52
1st is the backyard setbacks. As you can see in the application, this is going to create a second story. Terrace is effectively 00:40:58
expanding the second story living area. It includes A stairway. It replaces a second story door. By its nature this is really a 00:41:05
second story project, A2 story project. As a result it should really be subject to the 8 foot set back that all two-story 00:41:11
development is supposed to be subject to in PHG. 00:41:17
Even if it wasn't a. 00:41:25
Two-story development in nature. 00:41:27
The survey creates A dilemma and being able to establish that this project actually complies with even the five foot set back. The 00:41:31
survey that's that is in the packet only has one point of measurement, reference and when. 00:41:37
When you look at the property itself, it does appear to be skewed to the property line. Without an adequate survey that assesses 00:41:46
the full length of that, there is no way the information is not before the board today to be able to say that the current stakes 00:41:52
are going to be adequate to even have it comply with A5 foot set back. 00:41:58
In addition to this, the buildings are already very close together. We submitted a letter that includes photos that demonstrates 00:42:05
how clues close the eaves of the two buildings are, and this is going to be further exacerbated by the project if it is developed 00:42:10
as designed. 00:42:15
In addition to this, it's going to expand the existing nonconformities. The current building is already less than 5 feet from the 00:42:23
property line, which doesn't comport with the requirements for a two-story set back. In addition, it is already within that 8 foot 00:42:29
set back that's between buildings. 00:42:35
If this project is built, is going to extend those nonconformities an additional 26 feet, And that's contrary to the purposes of 00:42:42
zoning, which is intended to prevent additional nonconformities and eventually phase them out. 00:42:47
This project has substantial privacy concerns for the Wendorf's and the letter we that we submitted. You can see photos taken from 00:42:54
inside the Wendorf's home, whether this is in their living room, their kitchen, their front room, all the way to the other side of 00:43:00
the house, on the first story in their personal bedroom, on the deck, and even on the second story in their guest bedroom and 00:43:06
office. All of those locations can be seen by the project as currently designed. It essentially strips some of the privacy to be 00:43:12
able to. 00:43:18
Live in quiet solitude, essentially in their own home. For all of these reasons, we urge you to recommend denial of this permit to 00:43:25
the Planning Commission. Thank you. 00:43:30
Thank you. 00:43:36
Good afternoon, members of the ARB. My name is Hunter Eldridge and you can know me. I'm an architect practicing architecture in 00:43:51
this town. I've practiced architecture in this town over the last 20 years and I have been asked by the neighbors, Kim and Alan 00:43:57
Wendorf, to take a look at this project and provide some criticism. 00:44:04
I'll assume there'll be members of have read my letter, and I'll try to keep this as short as possible. 00:44:12
Currently, the proposed design essentially wipes out all of the views, light, and privacy on the rear of the Windorf home and 00:44:18
resulting in egregious encroachments and into the privacy of their home. The owner of the proposed project is essentially taking 00:44:23
over their views, light, and. 00:44:29
And at the same time violating their privacy with by building this long and extended addition across the rear yard up against what 00:44:35
appears to be a 5 foot set back. I'm going to question that in a second. I recognize the views are not owned by anyone here, but 00:44:41
the owner and the designer should feel an obligation to design the project in a manner that's compatible with the neighbor. 00:44:48
Generally this project may appear to be compatible with the neighborhood, but in the case of the wind or directly adjacent to the 00:44:54
project. 00:45:00
It really isn't compatible at all. 00:45:07
Through a variety of their spaces, including the bed that they sleep in. Umm. 00:45:44
I've had this discussion with Mr. Campbell who I respect on other projects and it's been my understanding that any two-story 00:45:51
design scheme in in this zoning requires an 8 foot set back. So I question respect for question the the five foot set back here. 00:45:59
I'd also like to point out that the design really isn't based off of a land survey late in the game. The applicant brought in 00:46:07
Frank Lucido surveyor Frank Lucido to survey the story polls. 00:46:14
But they did not do a complete survey of the property. I work with Mr. Lucido often and I called him up and asked him about this 00:46:23
and he agreed with me. He could not confirm whether the rear property line is skewed to the rear of the house or not because he 00:46:31
just didn't do enough work. If you read the the exhibit that Mister Lucido provided you, it's referenced as a survey sketch. It is 00:46:38
not a full survey of the property and it isn't sufficient. I wouldn't have started this project without a full blown survey. 00:46:46
They're essentially flying blind on some level, and they still don't know exactly where their set back is, whether the property 00:46:54
boundary is skewed to the rear of the house or not. 00:46:59
Let's leave it at that. 00:47:05
We're kind of overtime if you can summarize your comments real overtime if you want to summarize your statements. 00:47:10
It seems to me that moving the the wendorf's the stairs away from the winder's house is an obvious solution that would really be 00:47:18
helpful, as Mr. Huff suggests. 00:47:23
The upper level deck in the proposed project is 5.8 times larger than the existing balcony. It's a huge deck. I mean it covers the 00:47:30
entire footprint of the lower level proposed. 00:47:34
I question the need for that. What's it going to be used for social gatherings? It's a lot larger than the space it serves, 00:47:40
really, so that could become another problem. 00:47:45
Beyond that. 00:47:52
I guess I've exceeded my time. I'll stop. Right. Thank you. Thank you. 00:47:54
Is there any other public comment? 00:48:00
Or online. 00:48:04
All right. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:48:09
Oh, I just see a hand raised. Yeah, Bingo. Lorenzen Dahmer, Just raise your hand. 00:48:14
Thank you. 00:48:21
Chair and board members, I've really been noticing a lot of fudging on on setbacks and I really hope you are very familiar with 00:48:24
our code and. 00:48:31
Granting of variances and our LCP which which prevails over our code even if there is a disagreement. And I would hope that you're 00:48:41
paying really close attention to these setback issues. Thank you very much. 00:48:49
Thank you. 00:49:00
Seeing no additional hands raised, we will now close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:49:04
Remember Huff, would you like to begin? I have a few questions for staff. That's OK. 00:49:13
I I've read the I've read the letters about the survey. I've. I've. 00:49:20
Heard the public comments about the survey as staff satisfied with the survey work that's been done. 00:49:25
Yes. And further, we're satisfied with a plan that says it's going to be 5 foot set back. So in the building process that is part 00:49:31
of what our inspectors do is to make sure that that set back is met. So if the plan say 5 feet, they won't be able to go 4 1/2 00:49:38
feet, they won't be able to go 3 feet, they'll have to go 5. And if at that point I believe if we have, I think he was saying 00:49:46
that, that it's been staked. Did you, did you say that was? 00:49:53
There were points that were staked for reference. 00:50:01
But do you want to come back to the come back to the sorry to the microphone so people online can hear? 00:50:08
Yeah. Thank you. 00:50:14
Yes, we had Frank, Frank, Lorenzo, the surveyor put multiple. 00:50:16
Reference points on the survey in the area of the proposed project, so we can reference those points exactly for a measurement. 00:50:23
And if I may again. 00:50:34
When we review plans, we review informants. If it had said that it was 4 1/2 feet, we would have said no. But the plans say 5 00:50:36
feet. So what you're approving is a plan for five feet. 00:50:42
Makes sense with regard to the. 00:50:51
In the in the staff report and I'm looking in the section beginning with the applicable zoning code requirement regulations. 00:50:54
The statement is made that as proposed, the project would not increase any existing or create new nonconformities. 00:51:04
Just same kind of question I. 00:51:11
Just based upon the public comment that you've received and and the letters received or is it still staff's view that that is in 00:51:16
fact the case? Yes. I think the original plans where he hadn't set that back that 6 inches, he did right five feet. But when they 00:51:22
got the survey they found out that that house was actually closer to five feet because they were if if they had gone straight with 00:51:29
that line. 00:51:35
And and hadn't done that survey then yeah that would have been it would have been a continuing of that non conforming, but it's 00:51:42
not continuing and nonconformity. 00:51:45
OK, so just. 00:51:49
My comments are that there's there's a couple things about this project that concern me. 00:51:51
Umm, first is the Good Neighbor considerations and particularly guideline #7 in our handbook. 00:51:57
And. 00:52:05
I had to balance in my mind this new expansive balcony with the fact that but there already is an existing balcony. 00:52:06
And and that balcony was in existence, I think. When? 00:52:15
The neighbors purchased their home. 00:52:20
And the home that they purchased, I'm Speaking of the rear, the rear yard neighbors and the home that they purchased, they 00:52:23
purchased knowing that it clearly was not, it clearly was non conforming as it was cited on that property. And so with that I 00:52:28
think they purchased some. 00:52:34
Some burden. 00:52:40
That would you know, come with their house and perhaps future development of of their neighbors home. And so I really struggled 00:52:41
with that balcony and been thinking about this plan and at the end of the day I've, I think I come to rest on the point of that 00:52:48
there already is an existing balcony and when the windor purchased their home, that balcony was there and yeah, the balconies 00:52:55
being extended, but it's being extended away from them. 00:53:02
Umm, so it's not the balcony itself that troubles me, it's the stair. 00:53:09
Because I don't think the stair matches any type of design aesthetic that that we see in single family homes in Pacific Grove. 00:53:15
I think it masses the the the remaining greenscape in the yard in a way that is unappealing. 00:53:26
And it unnecessary. This is a way that under thinking about good neighbor considerations that we can ameliorate perhaps the impact 00:53:36
on the windorfs and what you know what their, what you know they were going to experience by the result of this. So I wonder if 00:53:43
it's possible that we could ask that there be a reconsideration of that stare and I understand that it may be needed for. 00:53:50
The personal necessities of the residents, and I'm very respectful of that and mindful that I'm wondering if it's possible as a 00:53:57
design compromise. Like as I mentioned, if that window and the first story duplex can be impaired a bit and the stair come down to 00:54:04
the east and turn to, I forget which direction it was, but turn turn 90° in a way that would then. 00:54:11
And obviously I don't know if that can be implemented in the space and meet all access codes etcetera, but assuming that it can, I 00:54:18
think that would be a design compromise that would help the implementation of this project. 00:54:25
Thank you. 00:54:32
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this project. I think that there are I have a lot of questions for it and I think the some middle. 00:54:39
By the neighbors and by Mr. Eldridge. The points there are very well taken. 00:54:48
I'd like to go back to staff and get a little further clarity on a couple of the points raised with respect to the subject codes. 00:54:55
So the first one was like Staffs response to 23.68 point 050 E with respect to non non conforming aspects may not be expanded I. 00:55:07
So. 00:55:25
The first point being that I do believe that we need a full comprehensive survey to understand whether. 00:55:28
Whether the current proposed plan is within. 00:55:36
The five foot set back but then the others, but the tangential question related to that is. 00:55:39
What is staff's response to whether this should be an 8 foot set back as opposed to a minimum of an 8 foot set back as opposed to 00:55:45
five feet based based on it being a second two points is what I understood based on one being at a an actually actually a second 00:55:52
story addition. 00:55:58
And the other aspect of. 00:56:06
8 feet between buildings, and I guess staff's current interpretation of the code being that that only applies to. 00:56:09
The actual lot being evaluated and not between neighbors and that didn't make much sense to me and so I was wanted to see what 00:56:20
staff's response was to. 00:56:26
The neighbor's critiques. 00:56:34
And thank you very much, board member, my name is Karen Vaughn, I'm the city's Community Development director. And I can address a 00:56:39
little bit of what the comment letters stated and your questions on the zoning code. So first of all, I. 00:56:48
Zoning code section 23.04, point 040. 00:56:57
Grants the chief planner, which would be myself, the authority to interpret the zoning code so that authority rests with me. 00:57:03
Some of you may know I worked here 15 years ago as a senior planner and this was an interpretation that we worked with back back 00:57:13
then in terms of the step backing of setbacks for upper stories on on homes. 00:57:21
In this particular case. 00:57:32
As you noted, a single story element would have a 5 foot rear yard set back. So if you think about a single story, Home could be 00:57:34
built to the five foot set back in the rear. And if they came in at a later date and wanted to add a second story, the second 00:57:41
story would be set back to the 8 foot mark. So looking at it that way. 00:57:49
We apply that as the rear yard setbacks for the for a single story element versus a second story versus a third story element. So 00:57:57
the interpretation is that they can do this step back design. That was the interpretation here previously. I I do understand that. 00:58:06
Recently there was a more conservative interpretation made of that. 00:58:17
I'm generally of the opinion once an interpretation is made. 00:58:24
The implementation of the zoning code shouldn't change person by person who's sitting in the director's chair. We want it to be 00:58:30
consistent throughout staff and and throughout the city. Because there have been multiple interpretations of the same rear yard 00:58:36
set back aspect. I am reasserting the original interpretation that I worked with here 15 years ago which allows for the step back 00:58:43
design. OK, if I can just interject there. Understood. So if it's a second story, it needs to be set back 8 foot third story, I 00:58:49
think it's 10. 00:58:56
So just so my understanding is accurate though if there is a. 00:59:03
Second story deck is that. Are you saying that that's not considered a second story then? Or is that Second story deck have to be 00:59:07
set back eight feet? No, it does not need to be set back eight feet because it's not habitable floor area. 00:59:14
OK. 00:59:22
So only the the wall of the structure for the second story would be set back at the 8 foot mark. OK. Thank you. 00:59:23
And then in terms of the, I think is it an 8 foot separation between between structures, right that is on a per lot basis? 00:59:31
Because neighboring properties have non conforming situations with their buildings, that does not impinge on the rights of a 00:59:42
property owner. 00:59:47
To do development on their property. So it's that 8 foot building separation is only within the lot itself. That's a city 00:59:53
interpretation or what. Yeah, that's interesting to me. That's the code. Yeah. Well when you think about it, there are other 01:00:02
sections of the code like for Adus that allow a three foot set back for accessory structures that can be 5 foot set back. So in 01:00:11
and of itself the code allows provisions for structures to be closer than 8 feet together. 01:00:19
On neighboring lots. I thought about that and that's interesting, but. 01:00:29
You. I would think that my. 01:00:33
My response to that was simply that, well, it's kind of like a first in time 1st and right application in terms of, well, if you 01:00:37
built 3 feet. 01:00:41
Would then buy the set back from your from. 01:00:47
From the property line and you built there 1st and that was her code and fine. It simply just means that your neighbor now can't 01:00:51
build has to build at least five feet back. Yeah, no, that's not the case. And in fact that would probably be legally challenged 01:00:57
because that could be considered a partial taking. 01:01:04
Of the adjacent property owners rights. 01:01:12
Interesting. 01:01:17
Yeah, it'd be interesting. I mean I certainly defer to the staff on it, but it seems interesting in terms of just like the fire 01:01:20
application hazard there. But OK, there is no, well just that's that's also again with building and I have checked with John Keel 01:01:27
in the past and there is no building code that says you can't be closed right now. Building code builds fire separation not in 01:01:33
distance. 01:01:39
But in time so that wall may be a one hour rating or whatever they it's so it's not in residential commercials a different story 01:01:46
they would they would change that but also keep in mind that this is the R4 zoning district. R4 zoning district is high density so 01:01:54
on these lots it's kind of weird because this if you've noticed it is a budding on R1 zoning district so but the thing that you 01:02:01
think about when multi family. 01:02:09
Is that they are building and so that's part of design of the property. It's usually larger properties. 01:02:16
Able to build multiple buildings on one property, so since it is a high density, it's. 01:02:23
Are for the thought is like let it's that's where it's on site thinking about doing multifamily and multi buildings and those 01:02:30
distances per building on site interesting. Thank you that's very helpful staff I appreciate certainly and and then I just wanted 01:02:35
to. 01:02:41
Address one final comment that one of the commenters made about the the project violating zoning laws. So our review of this 01:02:48
application with the five foot rear yard set back. 01:02:55
It's not extending or expanding any existing nonconformity. It's not creating any new nonconformity. It is conforming with the 01:03:03
setbacks I. 01:03:09
And building separation requirements. So from staff's viewpoint, there is no violation of any zoning ordinance issues on the site. 01:03:16
Very good that that all makes sense and I appreciate again the clarity there. I'm. 01:03:28
I still. 01:03:34
Have problems with this project based on the ARB guidelines, specifically 7 that was already raised and I think that. 01:03:36
I agree with. 01:03:45
Member huff that there are as currently designed. I don't think that that is workable with guideline 7 and so I agree that I think 01:03:48
that that aspect particularly the stairs. 01:03:55
Not only I think it's just. 01:04:05
Not very aesthetically pleasing, but more importantly, in terms of the detrimental impact to the neighbors, I don't think it 01:04:07
sufficiently complies with Air B Guideline 7, and therefore I'm personally not comfortable with the current plan set. That's all 01:04:13
I'll say say for now. 01:04:18
I agree. I. 01:04:35
I wish there was a full. 01:04:40
Property survey done prior to the design because now I'm, you know, questioning. 01:04:44
Questioning the lot lines and I. 01:04:53
It seems like it would have been the right thing to do in the beginning before designing. 01:04:59
I'm not in favor of the of expanding this deck, and I do feel like the. 01:05:07
Stairwell is the the entry is just very massive. 01:05:20
To me. 01:05:29
I wish that they that we could. 01:05:38
You know, see other iterations of how they could get up into that unit. 01:05:41
Private view shed, of course, is not protected. We all know that. 01:05:52
Light is an issue. We could. 01:05:58
We could ask for. 01:06:05
A. What is that Sun Solar study? 01:06:09
We could. 01:06:16
Make a recommendation for. 01:06:21
Opaque railings. 01:06:25
I can appreciate the owner and contractor trying to expedite the process, but we have to. We have one chance to get this right and 01:06:33
it's today. 01:06:41
Unless we ask them for a redesign and come back. So I think we need to take all the time that we need. 01:06:51
In order to. 01:06:58
Make sure we don't make a mistake because this is going to out. This home will outlive all of us here. 01:07:00
That's all I. 01:07:09
I have for now. 01:07:09
Thank you. I agree with Miss Boyle in her comments and I do think it's important to deliberate thoroughly here and to try to get 01:07:18
this right. The one thing I did want to add to my prior comments is that there just is a lot of space in the yard and so. 01:07:28
I do think there's plenty of opportunity here to redesign it. It's like. 01:07:38
It's not certainly not my job or am I capable of doing that, but I do think there is a lot a wide Ave. here for creativity in 01:07:43
order to. 01:07:49
Hopefully meet the demands of the homeowner and also. 01:07:56
Comply with the guidelines specifically 7. The other point that I think we mentioned, we talked about a little bit earlier is that 01:08:02
from my understanding, the prior deck was kind of in the middle of the. 01:08:10
Of the north facing elevation. So you know it has been my understanding the way I viewed to see the plans that it certainly has 01:08:18
been expanded out towards the neighbor all the way to the property line I. 01:08:25
Which is the set back. 01:08:34
So yeah, I think that that's certainly problematic. 01:08:36
Thank you. 01:08:41
Yeah, I I do think this is complex. So we have a parcel, this particular property with interfacing zoning. So to the southern side 01:08:45
it's R1. 01:08:51
I I will acknowledge in regards to the positioning of the stairwell. This is a duplex and so they are trying to design around that 01:08:59
and this stairwell will be servicing 1/2 of the home. 01:09:07
Also in regards to the renders and the accuracy this acknowledging right that it's correct, they are portrayed with blue sky 01:09:17
behind, but I would also comment. 01:09:25
Comment that they are presented at the level of the home and not from the street level. 01:09:34
Which is a much lower elevation and you can barely see you can't see the the ground level. 01:09:42
From the actual sidewalk. So while it is a little maybe not deceiving with the render, it's we're also looking at it front and 01:09:49
center as if we were in the backyard of this property and not from the street like pedestrians walking by. 01:09:57
And. 01:10:08
This. 01:10:11
The neighbor with the complaints does appear their home was remodeled up to the fence line up to, you know, within inches of the 01:10:13
fence line. 01:10:20
In the last 20 years or so, and I'm not sure if it was the current owners or the owners before. 01:10:28
But that reduced set back. 01:10:35
To inches is really. 01:10:39
You know, kind of outside the control of of. 01:10:43
Of this property of 206 Lobos and while I'm typically pro survey. 01:10:47
It it appears, I'm not sure what other information we would glean. Other we might discover that that the fences. 01:10:53
You know, maybe that's misplaced and maybe the the neighbors on Wood St. built onto their property line. It's kind of unclear, but 01:11:04
so I guess I'm comfortable with the given the proximity to the to the other structure with respecting the UH. 01:11:12
Setbacks of five feet. Just documenting that and ensuring that that's at least five feet. 01:11:22