No Bookmarks Exist.
Right. Welcome. I will call the Architectural Review Board meeting to order. It is Tuesday, June 11th. And before we have a roll 00:00:00
call, I'll announce that member David Huff is participating remotely. 00:00:07
And I will ask for a motion to approve his remote attendance and participation. So moved. 00:00:14
2nd. 00:00:22
Right, all in favor. 00:00:24
Aye. 00:00:27
OK. 00:00:32
And we will invite him into the room. 00:00:33
Give me a moment to make sure this is. 00:00:39
Good morning, good evening, Good afternoon, everybody. 00:00:43
OK. Hi, David. 00:00:46
OK. So to facilitate your remote attendance, I believe I will just ask if you are alone in the room or if there's anybody over 18 00:00:50
in the room with you. I'm alone. 00:00:57
Sorry, he just got bumped the panel, this all right? 00:01:09
I'm alone in the room. It's a but it's an open conference room and the agenda is posted outside. 00:01:15
Excellent. Thank you. May we have a roll call? 00:01:22
Chair Bornstein. 00:01:30
Member 2nd. 00:01:33
Member Boyle or Vice Chair Boyle here, Secretary Brooks here, and Member Hoff. 00:01:36
Here we have 5 present. We have a quorum. 00:01:42
All right. We'll move on to item number two, approval of the agenda. 00:01:48
Make it a motion to approve the agenda. 00:01:53
So moved. 00:01:58
I'll second that. 00:02:01
All right, maybe get A roll call. 00:02:04
Secretary Brooks. 00:02:07
Hi. 00:02:10
Vice Chair Boyle. 00:02:11
Chair Bornstein, member Sutton and member Huff. 00:02:14
0 nays the agenda is approved. Excellent. We'll now move on to item number three, board and staff announcements. Are there any 00:02:22
board or staff announcements? 00:02:28
None from the board. Any staff announcements? All right. 00:02:37
We'll move on to item number 4, Council liaison announcements. I see Debbie Beck. Welcome, Debbie. Thank you. Good afternoon, 00:02:41
Chair and Commissioners. At our June 5th Council meeting, we had our first reading of an ordinance to adopt fiscal year 2425 00:02:49
budget. The second reading will happen on June 19th and then we also received our quarter three CIP report. 00:02:57
And that's all I have for today. Have a great meeting. 00:03:06
Thank you. 00:03:09
We'll move to general public comment. Are there any members of the public, either on Zoom or in the room, that wish to speak to 00:03:12
items not on the agenda? If so, please raise your hands virtually or step up to the podium. 00:03:19
Seeing no hands raised, we will close general public comment. 00:03:34
And then we don't have any items on the consent agenda. So we will move point of order. May I really quickly remember half I 00:03:39
believe if if available, I believe we have to have this video on for. 00:03:45
For the recording. 00:03:52
Yeah, I'm on a zoom. I can, I don't. 00:03:55
There should be a video here. 00:04:03
One second. 00:04:06
There you go. 00:04:15
Thank you. 00:04:17
Excellent. 00:04:21
OK, we'll move right along to our regular agenda. 00:04:22
Under item A, we'll start with architectural permit AP23-0346 at 206 Lobos Ave. And before we begin, I'll ask board members, is 00:04:27
there anybody that needs to recuse themselves? I do, so I'll be pulling for myself in the room. 00:04:35
All right, Member Stephan will be recusing for this item, so we'll just give for a moment. 00:04:44
May we have this staff report please? 00:05:06
Yes, good afternoon, Chair Bornstein and board members. Today I'm presenting Architectural permit 230346 proposed project at 206 00:05:10
Lobos Ave. 00:05:15
The project was first presented at the May 14th regular meeting and I'd like to actually make a correction for my staff report I 00:05:21
mistakenly wrote March 12th. So for the record, I want to make sure that it's known that it was May 14th. Upon review and and 00:05:28
deciding Architectural Review Guidelines numbers 5728 and 34, the ARB requested a redesign with the primary focus on privacy and 00:05:36
the relocation of the stairway leading from the rooftop terrace to grade. 00:05:43
The applicant agreed to make these revisions based on their comments, and the Board approved a motion to continue the item to 00:05:50
today, June 11th, at the regular meeting. 00:05:55
To recap, it is currently developed with a 1551 square foot two-story duplex, the 400 square foot garage. The dwelling units 00:06:02
consist of a 451 square foot front first floor unit and 1100 square foot two-story unit in the rear. 00:06:10
This project is located in the R4 Zoning district and the General Plan designates this zone is high density residential. It is 00:06:22
developed with the neighborhood is developed with one and two-story residences of varying architectural styles with 400 or 4186 00:06:29
square foot interior. Parcel is located on the West side of Lobos Ave. between Lighthouse Ave. and Short St. The property is not 00:06:36
located in the Coastal zone and is not listed on the city's Historic Resources Inventory. 00:06:43
Before you you have the previously proposed addition, just some other sketches from the top of the revised edition. And the 00:06:54
revised proposal includes the construction of a 358.5 square foot first floor addition to the north side of the existing rear 00:07:01
dwelling unit, which will result in a 1485 square foot residential unit. There will be no change to the front dwelling unit. The 00:07:08
project also includes an additional 2nd floor doorway, a new second floor rooftop terrace. 00:07:15
The new stairway leading to grade. As proposed, the new addition would be in a side yard elevated from Lobos Ave. It's set back 30 00:07:23
feet from the front property line and screened from view from the street by existing fencing vegetation. The public series stairs 00:07:29
to the South of the garage are proposed to be removed and a new exterior lift would be installed for accessibility. Future, 00:07:35
possibly wheelchair accessibility to the rear of the residence. And as mentioned above, the Arab cited Architectural Review 00:07:41
Guidelines 572834. 00:07:47
And requested the ethical revised list. Is the the previously proposed design based on primary primarily on privacy and the 00:07:53
stairway leading to grade? 00:07:58
Just to give you guys a view, these are the. 00:08:08
Previously proposed east elevations. 00:08:12
And the revised east elevation. 00:08:15
We have the previously proposed proposed N elevation. 00:08:19
And the revised N elevation and the stairs here were relocated from the extreme West or rear of the property and moved to the 00:08:24
other side of the proposed bathroom addition, and that Shields the stairs from view from the rear property. 00:08:31
There had been some question and this is intentionally on its side just to to meet what the rest of the design that I'm showing 00:08:43
you. There had been some question about the. 00:08:48
Survey that was conducted and I spoke with the California Certified Land Surveyor, Frank Lucido of Lucido Surveyors. 00:08:55
And he relayed to me that he did meticulous measurements to prepare the site plan, sketch, survey and set markers on the property 00:09:02
by which the builders and the building official can measure distances from the property lines. So you can rest assured, I checked 00:09:08
with him, that this is a valid survey. 00:09:13
Because access to the property is difficult and you can't see too much of the story polls from the street, I did provide some 00:09:21
pictures the the property the applicant allowed me onto the property to and take some pictures I can present to you today. 00:09:29
This is just from the front, just showing where it's difficult to see. 00:09:38
The addition from the street. 00:09:46
And here are the story polls from the northeast corner of the property. 00:09:51
This also from the northeast corner of the property you can see where the netting. Let me see if I can. 00:09:58
This is where the if you can see where my arrow is on both this is where the stairs will be coming down. This is the rear this 00:10:05
this orange netting. Here is the rear bathroom addition and once if if belt would block the stairs from. 00:10:14
The rear of the rear property. 00:10:24
These next few photos show that her architectural review guideline #8 that existing natural vegetation provides privacy screening. 00:10:29
This is taken from the existing balcony. 00:10:40
At the proposed location I. 00:10:45
And you can see that. 00:10:48
Existing these these trees that remain These trees had been planted a while back and will be growing, but they provide. 00:10:51
Privacy screening per architectural review guideline #8. 00:11:01
Colors show that here other properties have used vegetation more because again or for its high density residential that you use 00:11:07
vegetation to block or to to obscure views from their neighbors. That's including everyone. Everyone actually all of the the 00:11:15
surrounding properties have have vegetation. They're doing that. 00:11:24
And as I said, this is high density residential. 00:11:35
And I just also want to demonstrate from this picture, this view from the balcony that. 00:11:38
The properties in the neighborhood are this isn't, it's not an abnormal, it's all dense. These are all properties. This this one 00:11:46
was on the property line. You can see the one in the rear is close to their property line. We have roofs and all of these 00:11:53
properties are bordering. We have another. 00:11:59
Second story balcony that is also at that. So what is being proposed is not abnormal for the R4 district. It is a high density 00:12:07
residential district. 00:12:12
In addition to the privacy concerns, I've spoken with the applicant and they are willing to provide solid or opaque deck guards or 00:12:20
decorative glass. And just to to show this is if if there was opaque, this is the decline these these lines. The top line is is at 00:12:29
the top line of of the the story polls representing the railing and showing that they're willing to do. 00:12:39
Extra measures for. 00:12:51
For privacy views of their neighbors. In addition, that first floor, if you notice the 1st floor addition on either side of the 00:12:55
chimney, on the rear side there are two windows and they are. 00:13:01
They're amenable to using decorative glass, again opaque to allow the sunlight in, but protect views to and from the neighbors. 00:13:07
The materials are proposed to match the existing you have what looks like 9 German or Dutch lap wood siding and and it will all be 00:13:19
complementary to the existing residents. 00:13:25
The existing residences have a non conforming yard setbacks, but as proposed this project would not increase any existing or 00:13:34
create any new nonconformities. The proposed project complies with the zoning regulations and development standards set forth in 00:13:42
in the zoning chapters 23.28 for R4 and 23.64 for general provision provisions and exceptions. The proposed project will require a 00:13:49
use permit for the increase of floor area for a non conforming duplex and that review. 00:13:56
Determination of the use permit and actually the determination also of the architectural permit will be considered concurrently by 00:14:04
the Planning Commission and For these reasons, staff recommends the Architectural Review board recommend approval to the Planning 00:14:11
Commission for architectural permit 230346 subject to the findings conditions of approval and sequel guidelines. 15 three O 1 E 00:14:18
Class 1 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and I am available for available for questions if you have any. 00:14:25
Thank you. 00:14:33
Do we have any questions for staff? 00:14:35
Seeing none, I will invite the applicant up if you'd like to make a presentation or the owner. 00:14:39
And you'll have 10 minutes. 00:14:46
And if you could press the little button so we can hear you. 00:14:50
So yeah, you can hear. 00:15:03
OK, so I'm Barbara Klaus. I, my husband and I are proud owners of the two 06208 Lopez property. I am here today to correct some 00:15:06
misconceptions that were presented to you by a legal firm and the architects that were hired by the Wind Horse. 00:15:18
Hoping to convince you to deny the permit that we need to move on with our plans. 00:15:31
So. 00:15:41
Sorry and I'm a little nervous so. 00:15:46
And I do face it just for this. 00:15:49
OK, so just so you can see what the property looks like now. 00:15:54
OK. 00:16:04
At the May 14th meeting, it was reaffirmed that our plan does meet all the building codes and regulations. 00:16:05
In addition. 00:16:19
Sorry, just. 00:16:28
There in addition, we have received the new site plan, which verifies that our plan is compliant with setbacks and officially 00:16:30
stamped by a surveyor. 00:16:37
Do I aim at this? 00:16:52
There OK, this is a picture which visually demonstrates how close the Winders property is to the property line. It's three inches. 00:16:56
It was a knowledge that the meeting that last meeting that purchasing a property that no longer follows today's required 5 foot 00:17:05
set back can create a burden on the owners. 00:17:13
If for example 206 plants to develop their property. 00:17:22
This burden is now realized as the wind nurse now have issues with our approved plan. 00:17:27
Although our plan follows the five foot set back requirements, their lack of a 5 foot set that creates problems that would 00:17:34
otherwise be non existent. 00:17:40
Which are invasions of privacy, negative impact on views and sunlight, and location of a required emergency exit staircase. 00:17:47
The wind earth's concerns follow falls under good neighbor considerations in the Architectural Review guidelines which are 00:18:07
considered shoulds what one thinks is best, not compulsory or required necessary. 00:18:16
Oh, OK, I'm there. 00:18:36
The Winders claimed that the proposed addition and crouches upon their wait. This is an edge. 00:18:40
I'm so sorry. 00:18:49
So I ended up at this. 00:18:58
All right, thank you. So I need then. 00:19:02
OK, Yeah, that's it back. 00:19:12
Back. 00:19:16
The Winders claim that the proposed addition encroaches upon their privacy and negatively impacts their views. The following 00:19:17
slides will establish that it is actually our privacy that is encroached upon and they're negatively impacted. Views are actually 00:19:25
views of our personal space in our yard. 00:19:33
They claim that we can look directly onto their deck and into their bedroom at their bed. Their master bedroom door sits at the 00:19:46
back of their deck, which is approximately 15 feet away from our shared fence. This area is blocked by our photocarpus, which will 00:19:55
be 20 to 40 feet high and five to six feet wide. 00:20:04
Individually. 00:20:14
At the opposite end of their rooms, the bottom of their windows facing our yard are 6 feet and eight feet above ground level. So 00:20:15
unless we use the ladder, we cannot see into or through into their windows or through their house. 00:20:25
OK. 00:20:36
These slides show photos the Winders provided which demonstrate how they are encroaching our privacy. These are the views which 00:20:38
are being negatively impacted, Not views of the ocean or the golf course or a park or town which in my opinion would be more 00:20:46
interesting, but they are direct sweeping views of our fenced in yard. 00:20:54
The Wind Earths also claim that our new tariffs will encroach on their privacy. 00:21:05
The terrace floor will be at the top of their windows and will be directly facing our Italian buckthorns along the fence. It would 00:21:12
be difficult to look down and then through the windows below the terrace level. 00:21:20
Protocol ****** along their deck also blocks any views from our terrace. And as Aaron said, we would be. 00:21:30
It would be OK for us to get solid railing on the park facing their house. 00:21:40
OK, so we endorse automatically assumed that we will have many windows on their side the 24 foot length of the addition. 00:21:46
We are only adding two windows and only one faces their window which is 6 feet above ground level at its base. Again, one would 00:21:59
need a ladder to look into that window. We would consider installing awnings, tinted texture glass or privacy film. 00:22:10
The Winders have a full length of glass French doors at one end of their sunroom and three skylights above the at the opposite 00:22:28
end. Both bring in lots of sunlight. The windows in their sunroom are screened with vegetation. 00:22:37
On as as they were in the wine doors purchased the property. 00:22:46
Our revised required emergency exit staircase will be sandwiched between our 88 bathroom and 48. It will be set further away from 00:22:54
Windorf property and make it less visible and intrusive. 00:23:03
We request that the Board approves our permit enabling us to meet our current and future aging in place needs. The terrace will 00:23:14
provide us with additional outdoor space large enough to navigate with wheelchair Walker if we were confined upstairs. 00:23:23
An emergency exit staircase will provide a required alternate way to move between upstairs and downstairs in case of fire, medical 00:23:34
emergency or loss of power. 00:23:41
Our plants do not encroach on the endorse, privacy view or sunlight. 00:23:49
We've been part of the PG community since the mid 80s, spending every summer and living next door with my parents. Our children 00:24:00
attended Pacific Grove summer school sessions and our primary medical care has always been in PG. 00:24:09
My father, Robert Dees, played an active role in PG. He was a board member and architectural review board. He was in the Heritage 00:24:18
Society of PG, the Building Standards Committee and the 1989 Centennial Committee. He was president and vice president of the 00:24:27
Heritage Society of PG in 91 and 92. 00:24:36
We are excited that we were able to incorporate some of his ideas. 00:24:46
And Zions into our plan. 00:24:50
We are approaching our late 70s. We need a safe, easy access home which will help meet our aging and place needs. So we asked the 00:24:54
board please approve our permit as our plants will address our needs and will not impact our neighbors. 00:25:03
Perfectly on time, well done. 00:25:16
Do we have any questions for? 00:25:19
Not yet. Thank you. Thank you. 00:25:22
All right. With that we will open public comment. Is there anybody? 00:25:28
On Zoom or in the room that wishes to speak. 00:25:33
You're welcome. 00:25:43
Good afternoon. I'm Rebecca Sadoff and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Kim and Alan Weindorf or the neighbors that live next door to this 00:25:49
project. When this project came before the board last month, the board members noted a number of concerns about this design that 00:25:54
it was disproportionate and out of scale. The rest of the building that need to be sensitive to the location of the deck, so is to 00:26:00
avoid impacting neighbors privacy and of course the blockage of light. While the Windo certainly appreciate the relocation of the 00:26:06
stairs in the redesign. 00:26:12
As the board made clear during the last meeting, that was not the only concern. The architectural review guidelines apply to any 00:26:19
project that comes before this board. 00:26:23
And it's important that applicants continue to abide by those, the recommendations and the guidelines that the RB is going to be 00:26:29
evaluating them by. 00:26:33
As a whole, the redesign largely fails to address the board's concerns expressed during the last meeting, and in some ways makes 00:26:38
those concerns worse. 00:26:41
Privacy and lighting has continued to be a major issue with this redesign. It's the same concerns that the Windorf have been 00:26:46
bringing forward in the last meeting. 00:26:50
The privacy of the wonderful still impacted this terror still extends towards the property line and provides viewpoints into. 00:26:56
The majority of the aspects of the Windor's home. While the removal of the stairway does eliminate the view directly into the wine 00:27:04
doors personal bedroom, it doesn't eliminate the views into the first floor rooms all the way through the front of the building as 00:27:09
well as into the second story guest room and office. 00:27:14
Additionally, the currently existing vegetation as you can see in the photos that have been submitted up to this point. Looking 00:27:20
out of the Wendorf's windows as well as in the Staffs photos provided on the on the PowerPoint, you can see that from that terrace 00:27:26
they're going to have a view into. Anybody on that terrace will have a view into the Reinforce living room window, the one that 00:27:32
slightly set off to the side. 00:27:37
The currently existing vegetation doesn't adequately screen, and on top of that, there's no condition of approval contained within 00:27:45
the permit recommendation that would require its upkeep. 00:27:49
The redesign also exacerbates the lighting issue here. Now, I know that you just looked at some photos that were presented that 00:27:55
appear to be staging photos from real estate websites, where lighting is of course going to be emphasized in whatever way the real 00:28:00
estate agent finds proper. 00:28:06
However, as the board noted in the last one to redesign this solid wall, 5 feet outside the window is going to be an issue for any 00:28:12
neighbors in the architectural review guidelines encourage applicants to consider that in their design and. 00:28:19
The redesign will actually extend the solid wall aspect of this design an additional 6 feet, blocking the light further. 00:28:25
There are a lot of solutions available. This is a large lot. In fact, moving it further off the property line would help to 00:28:33
resolve a lot of these issues. We encourage the board to continue requiring a redesign so that this project can meet the classes 00:28:39
needs as well as their harmonious design for the neighborhood. Thank you. 00:28:45
Thank you. 00:28:51
51 virtual hand raised. 00:28:59
You have Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:29:06
Thank you. 00:29:12
The board This is one of those things that's really going to create lasting problems and especially as it. 00:29:14
This one is obviously contentious between neighbors. 00:29:26
And when these things happen and they're built anyway, believe me for my situation of being in their age group and having this 00:29:34
done to me back in the directors. 00:29:40
Last tenure here in Pacific Grove. 00:29:47
I I still do not speak to those neighbors 15 years later and they're rebuild three times and suing their architect and their 00:29:53
contractor's. 00:29:58
When you have something like this, and yes the Weindorfs are they bought a house. 00:30:06
Too close to the property line, but interpretations of 15 years ago for what is a second story or anything else is not necessarily 00:30:15
and. 00:30:20
The clauses have a large property that it could have been redesigned as the ARB really requested last time, and instead they did 00:30:27
redesign the staircase. Yes, it's better. 00:30:35
But the same contention is going to continue on. 00:30:44
Forever, until as long as those houses are standing and people are living in them. And that is really, really, really too bad, 00:30:51
because that doesn't contribute to PG. 00:30:57
And our community. 00:31:04
Health at all, so you really have. 00:31:09
Your work cut out for you here to decide what you're going to do Thank you. 00:31:15
Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in the room? Any other public comment? 00:31:23
Right, seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:31:30
I'd like to begin. 00:31:37
Well, I have many thoughts this is. 00:31:42
Many thoughts. 00:31:48
Continuing on what? 00:31:51
Inga said. I I can relate. I have a neighbor that's in the process of the same thing and. 00:31:55
It's very uncomfortable so I can. 00:32:03
I can relate to what she was saying and it's it's too bad really. 00:32:07
I. 00:32:12
I don't love what? 00:32:14
What the redesign is? 00:32:19
My my key. 00:32:22
Guideline is #35 I just I think what I. 00:32:25
Was. 00:32:33
What I kept thinking to myself was. 00:32:36
You don't really see it from the street. And then I thought. 00:32:40
That's a terrible reason to approve something. 00:32:46
Because what's on the street is wood. And if that is gone offense there's, you know, you don't have to have a front yard fence, 00:32:51
right? And trees. And if there was a fire and they didn't rebuild, I thought to myself. 00:32:59
Would you be happy? And this is relatively close to my neighborhood, would you be happy with this? 00:33:09
Project. 00:33:19
If there was nothing shielding it from the street and the answer was no. 00:33:22
I just think architecturally it's doing a disservice to the. 00:33:27
Original. 00:33:33
Home and I've got a project. 00:33:35
A home across the street from me that has was approved back in the 90s that they put an addition on and it should have never been 00:33:41
approved. 00:33:45
And it's been under construction for like 5 years trying to make it look good and. 00:33:51
I don't, I don't want to have to approve this and then we're approving a problem for the next owner, you know, trying to fix 00:33:59
something that shouldn't have been approved. We have one chance. 00:34:05
To get this right. I can appreciate that. 00:34:12
They're abiding by, you know, the, the, the codes. 00:34:17
That they need to, but I just think that the design was amiss. 00:34:23
And that's it for now. I'll probably have more, but. 00:34:31
I'll stop. 00:34:35
I want to say that I. 00:34:40
Appreciate the applicant coming up here and providing her. 00:34:44
Their thoughts and I can appreciate the concerns and points that they have raised. 00:34:50
I I am likewise still not in favor of the of this project or these plans. I don't think that for for me personally that they. 00:34:59
Abide by our guidelines, particularly for me, Guideline 7. 00:35:13
And while they do appear to comport with our municipal code, obviously you know the. 00:35:20
Purpose of one of our functions here on the board is to review these proposed plans in light of our guidelines and it keeps it's a 00:35:29
bulk of these guidelines is that new construction should enhance and respect neighborhood compatibility and I don't think that 00:35:37
that has been successfully done here. I think from a stepping back. 00:35:46
Just kind of point of order. 00:35:55
I don't think the plan set is complete. 00:36:00
As I think was mentioned at some point earlier on in the presentation, we don't see AI did not see a proposed elevation from the 00:36:02
from the West elevation. I was a bit disappointed in the fact that from what I could tell, there were there were only three new 00:36:08
pages. 00:36:15
For this new redesign to propose elevations and I think a floor floor plan. 00:36:23
And so just on that alone, it's I don't think we have. 00:36:32
Sufficient. 00:36:41
Documentation to adequately review the plan set and to make an appropriate and educated decision, but. 00:36:44
In terms of my comments at the prior meeting, I do think that the current plans do not comport with architectural guideline #7 I 00:36:56
also agree with it. 00:37:02
Remember Boyle in terms of architectural Guideline 35 as well? I think that's a very good point in terms and I also had the same 00:37:10
thought in terms of the. 00:37:15
The plans here, I, I certainly, I don't, I think they are. 00:37:21
I don't think they're as thoughtful as they could be, and I don't think that when I look at the entire new structure, if I looked 00:37:28
at it from. 00:37:35
An exterior vantage point that I would think that this was one home that was built in at one particular date, which I think is all 00:37:43
in my opinion something that we should always be striving for with any sort of addition. It shouldn't look like an addition. It 00:37:49
should look a cohesive part of the original plan and the original project and it it very much does not here and I do think that 00:37:55
while. 00:38:01
I agree with Sarah in terms of it's difficult to see currently from the street. There are trees out front and and a fence. I think 00:38:08
Sarah Spoil makes a an excellent point that that very well might not always be there. 00:38:14
And if it wasn't, looking at the proposed property project from the street. 00:38:20
It would be. 00:38:29
It wouldn't live up to, I think, our talent standards. So that's what I'll say at the moment. And again, I'm currently not in 00:38:31
support of the plans. 00:38:36
Before I invite member Huff for his comments, I do want to just say that, you know, to some remind ourselves this is a duplex and 00:38:44
I think that's another complexity of this project that it is, you know, basically bifurcated and we have, you know, if we're 00:38:51
looking at it just through the lens of Unit 1 and Unit 2. 00:38:58
It's going to be challenging to have that kind of cohesive intentional. 00:39:06
Look as if it were. 00:39:12
Sure, right, Because you have to have two entries, right, Two points of entry and now we're going to have what two points of entry 00:39:15
and one point of egress. But I still think that the I mean, with that being said and the whole housing element issue, I. 00:39:23
I I still think that it could have been. 00:39:33
So much prettier. 00:39:37
And perhaps would you like to share your comments? Thank you. And I think that's an excellent point about this project being a 00:39:41
duplex. I think I'm going to find myself in place of respectfully disagreeing with my colleagues here because I want to commend 00:39:48
the applicant on at least listening to the ARB and coming back with a better effort. I will agree that I don't believe this is 00:39:54
certainly not going to win any awards for design aesthetics. 00:40:00
But at the same time. 00:40:08
1st in time does not create 1st and right? 00:40:12
And I think the applicant was absolutely spot on when she said that just because, you know, it's the it's the house to the rear 00:40:17
that creates really the non conforming condition that gives us some of our cause to pause, or at least some of my cause to pause 00:40:23
that, you know, when I was thinking about this project, the last meeting. But it doesn't that doesn't mean that they don't have 00:40:29
the right to develop their property, you know. 00:40:36
As well and, and there will be some compromises and sacrifices that come along with that. 00:40:43
Exercising that right, but that is the right. I too have a neighbor to the rear that's building a second story addition right on 00:40:50
the property line. And you know, we don't like it, but it was their right to do it. And so it's frankly, it's not my inclination 00:40:56
to say no to this project because I think they did listen, I think they did remove a really unsightly architectural feature in the 00:41:03
form of the way the exterior stair protruded before. 00:41:10
I think they've done their best to incorporate the the egress element that they are required to have from the second story. Given 00:41:17
the kind of the unique nature of this structure that it's a, it's in fact a multi family home and a multi family residence in in 00:41:24
a, in a neighborhood of single family homes. I think that makes it difficult. I. 00:41:31
And I don't know. 00:41:39
I don't know how much better we can make them do. Given the the ingress door of the front unit of the duplex. We can't really push 00:41:42
this project away from the rear yard much further and and make it feasible. 00:41:50
So, and if you push it, you know, you push it more to the north, I think it, you know, you eliminate more green space. I think 00:42:00
there's no doubt that compromises. 00:42:05
Are required in order to allow the applicant to develop this property, and I think it's their right to do so. I think yeah, OK. Is 00:42:11
it Is it wobblers? Sure it is when it comes to complying with. 00:42:18
Guideline number 7 and guideline #35 I get it, I see it, but at the same time I see an effort to comply with it. I see. 00:42:26
At least a better effort that was done before and I do I'm completely sympathetic to the need of the applicants in order to to 00:42:36
implement these design changes in order to be able to age in place. So with that said, recognizing that this is again, you know, 00:42:43
unfortunately not the best design aesthetic I've seen come before the board. 00:42:50
I think it meets the minimum standards for us to say yes. Thanks. 00:42:58
Thank you. 00:43:05
Yes, this is a tough one. I'll just state that I do agree that we kind of have limited information in terms of the plan sets and 00:43:07
you know maybe some dimensions and window and door schedules. It is a bit limited. I know this was a quick turn, so well done. I 00:43:15
think it's the fastest that I've seen. But with that said, I feel like we can still we have enough information. 00:43:23
To kind of visualize and and. 00:43:32
Determine what what the impacts would be based on the elevations and the survey and the the description that the applicant 00:43:35
provided. 00:43:40
This is a complex area, right? It's a dense urban environment. You have perpendicular backyards. 00:43:46
And the neighboring property is right up there to the fence line. So I think what what I'm hearing us debate and wrestle over more 00:43:53
is the design versus the privacy impacts. Just to be frank, I think that, you know, we all live in in this city and are and have 00:44:00
to compromise with privacy. And that's why we use vegetation for screening. We try to be considerate with our window placement and 00:44:07
sizing. 00:44:14
But. 00:44:22
The the fact is, you know with any kind of addition or expansion, you're just. 00:44:23
There there will be some impacts to privacy and just to speak to the survey too, I know I. 00:44:30
I'm comfortable with the the boundary survey as is just because at least it will guarantee that 5 foot distance for safety versus 00:44:36
potentially we could be encroaching closer to that to that neighbor. So I'm comfortable with that distance I. 00:44:44
As documented by the the surveyor. 00:44:53
So and I just to expand on my comments about being a duplex. So I was trying to visualize this. I know some other. 00:44:56
Options were provided, but it kind of encroached and on the other units front yard. So I was trying to I kind of cut a line down 00:45:04
the middle and trying to visualize it just one unit. 00:45:08
By itself and what I agree with member Huff it it might not be the most amazing design. I I appreciate the the modifications and 00:45:13
adjustments and I did take note there was a little expansion you gained about 40 square feet and I see it to make the bathroom ADA 00:45:21
accessible. 00:45:28
So bringing it back to the board, I think we might be split here because I with that being said, I also support this project. I 00:45:37
appreciate the redesign and and the intention behind it and just recognize this is a duplex and a dense neighborhood. 00:45:46
Just trying to respect the constraints and design around those and you can't, you know, you're not going to scrap the whole house 00:45:57
and start over. So it's what you know, what do you have to work with and how do you mitigate that with accessibility with the with 00:46:03
the duplex multifamily? 00:46:08
So I am in support of this project also. 00:46:16
Happy to entertain more discussion. Sure, we can keep going. 00:46:21
I. 00:46:28
I am thrilled that they moved the stairs. I guess my my. 00:46:38
Umm umm. 00:46:46
I'm just going to keep going back to. 00:46:51
The the view. 00:46:57
From the street. 00:46:59
The front door. 00:47:03
Would it be helpful to project the photo? Would you mind projecting that photo? I mean sure, the photo or or the new revised 00:47:07
plans? 00:47:12
I guess when I keep coming back to is when you look at an addition of a house, whether you're putting it on top or on the side or 00:47:35
rear or front. 00:47:41
It seems as though if you cover with one hand the original and you look at the addition, it should, it should speak to what's 00:47:48
under your palm. And to me, this just misses that mark. And I, you know, I don't know, do you? 00:47:57
Reduce the amount of the. 00:48:06
Of the deck in order to make you know make more of an impact where you carry a roof line up and. 00:48:10
Raise the actual yes so that you don't see. It's not that I care to see the the rooftop deck where they're railing. It's just that 00:48:26
it looks like an afterthought, like somebody took a modular unit and stuck it on the side of a. 00:48:34
The building. 00:48:43
And I don't understand the the front door and you know, this triangle, is this a little piece of glass that's supposed to mirror 00:48:46
something else? 00:48:53
The back stairs. 00:49:04
Seem very. 00:49:09
Little you know, very narrow. They're the minimum. 00:49:12
Width I think allowed, but it would be nicer. 00:49:18
I don't know, I just feel like the design missed the mark. I. 00:49:24
I. 00:49:32
I mean, I'm happy with the where this stairs are and I, you know, nobody, nobody that I have met in Pacific Grove, unless they 00:49:39
have one, is in favor of a rooftop deck. 00:49:46
Umm. 00:49:53
I do believe that that that like an opaque glass. I mean even if the railing is higher than you know, 42 which I believe is code. 00:49:58
I I. 00:50:10
Would possibly mitigate some of their concerns about. 00:50:14
Privacy. 00:50:21
But it's the. 00:50:24
It's this. What is this facade? What is this elevation? Its proposed elevation to? It's that. 00:50:27
It's that elevation, that is. 00:50:38
Not sitting well with me. 00:50:52
Yeah, that's a challenge because if you just if you. 00:50:56
Truncate that deck and if you bring the stairs closer to the upper. 00:50:59
Level 2 That could look awkward, like there's just a stairwell. 00:51:04
Protruding from the. 00:51:09
Upper level, but even if the stairs remain where they are, but this is it has a a. 00:51:12
Some sort of a facade or you know, so you don't see the railing or this is the front door area. I mean, I believe in plan view is 00:51:24
just just straight. So you're not going to have an awning, you're not going to have dormer, you're just going to have this. 00:51:34
Straight. 00:51:49
Blocky. 00:51:52
Modular is what it looks like to me. 00:52:00
And again, I'm thrilled with the fact that they moved the stairs. I can really appreciate that. 00:52:04
It's just that elevation to that is. 00:52:12
Just not. 00:52:17
Not sitting well with me. 00:52:18
On Wednesday goes through. 00:52:22
If I may, I have to completely agree with you. I think proposed elevation two is a complete disservice, frankly as a drawing, 00:52:27
because I don't think it actually depicts well the dimension of what we're looking at. I think the door is depicted in a very an 00:52:35
artful way on this elevation. You have to really study the. 00:52:43
The schematic the page above if you can scroll up if you don't mind. 00:52:52
To really understand the dimension of what's going on there and that you know, the door is actually set back. 00:52:57
You know quite a bit from the. 00:53:05
The wall with the two windows in it and and proposed proposed elevation two is actually very confusing to me and so I actually do 00:53:09
you know. 00:53:14
Think about this plan, what they're trying to implement a little bit more to get through that kind of boxy modular impression that 00:53:20
proposed elevation two gives a. 00:53:26
I would hope that they could do a little bit with the door as it's set back from those two windows. 00:53:32
But. 00:53:39
I don't quite think the project as constructed will look from the street like what proposed elevation to depends. 00:53:41
By virtue of the. 00:53:53
The way that the door is actually set back from that new wall with the two windows facing the street. 00:53:55
And I appreciate that because nothing looks like a 2D. 00:54:03
Nothing looks 2 dimensional. 00:54:09
Accept architectural drawings? Well, they would have really benefited from a 3D drawing here for sure. 00:54:11
With that said, I still think it could have, you know, a little more. 00:54:22
Interest I I don't know. 00:54:34
I don't know what that is. I'm not an architect, I just. 00:54:39
Yeah. 00:54:48
Again, I always feel like. 00:54:51
The time to do it is when it's in front of you and so I feel like. 00:54:56
I would hate to see a missed opportunity here when we could. 00:55:02
Recommend something I don't know. 00:55:09
I just want to say that I really appreciate the dialogue and thoughts from fellow members. I don't disagree and. 00:55:15
Appreciate the robust discussion. 00:55:26
For me still. 00:55:29
The guideline seven really to me is problematic. 00:55:32
And conclusively so. 00:55:39
I understand and also appreciate the fact that this is a high density neighborhood and certainly appreciate that we have lots of 00:55:41
homes here in Pacific Grove that are very close together also. 00:55:48
Appreciate the. 00:55:55
Argument from the applicant in the sense that. 00:55:58
And mentioned by Mr. Huff in terms of first and right for some time that the wine dorse were purchased this home very close to the 00:56:01
property line and I. 00:56:07
Well, that that's that's something to consider. 00:56:14
Part of. 00:56:19
Part of what makes that a difficult pill for me to swallow is just the circumstance in this case of the fact that there is just. 00:56:20
So much room to work with here. This is a large lot and if it. 00:56:31
It would, I think I might reach a different conclusion if this was a property and a lot that you didn't really have much to work 00:56:38
with and you know, if you wanted this, this amount of floor space. 00:56:45
You needed to build right on the property line, but that really isn't the case here and so I do for me. 00:56:54
I can get past guidelines 7. In this instance that's. 00:57:03
I'll leave it at that. 00:57:08
Yeah, it does look a little disproportionate when we're looking top down. But again with the and there's a lot of open space in 00:57:12
this unit closer to this street. 00:57:17
So I am trying just to evaluate it just as the back unit as one. 00:57:23
Because. 00:57:29
I think that's only fair. I suppose being a duplex we couldn't ask them. I don't think it would be fair to encroach. 00:57:31
Umm. 00:57:39
Unit 1. 00:57:43
But anyway. 00:57:46
As I kind of mentioned, I think last meeting I'm I'm certainly I'm reluctant to. 00:57:48
To provide my own thoughts in terms of how it should be designed that that's not. I'm not qualified to do that. 00:57:54
But that being said, I do think there is a way where you do not encroach on you. You don't have to move the. 00:58:03
East elevation wall further east in order to. 00:58:12
Main in order to keep the growth floor area, but also move it away from the West elevation, meaning you can move that you can move 00:58:19
this this wall in and then. 00:58:25
Reconfigure it, perhaps put some more over here anyway. 00:58:33
Eating like more of an L? Yes, and I thought the same thing. I think there's there are ways to do it. I defer to the architect. 00:58:39
To devise it. Totally agree and I think I am not opposed. 00:58:49
To the rooftop deck. 00:58:55
Again, it's. 00:58:59
No neighbor likes them, you know. 00:59:02
But it's their right. And I'm not saying don't do a rooftop deck. I'm just saying let's just redesign this. 00:59:09
More thoughtfully. 00:59:18
Architecturally. 00:59:25
And there's more space, I think. I think they have more space. 00:59:34
To do. 00:59:41
Something more creative. They don't have more space. They have the space to do something a little more creative in my opinion. 00:59:43
So I'm hearing that. 00:59:54
The staggeredness is actually contributing to the the modular look for you, the staggered, just the fact that it's just all this, 00:59:57
it's just a flat, basically a flat. 01:00:04
Box that they have attached to the building and put a rooftop deck on top of it. 01:00:11
It's other than the windows. 01:00:19
And the siding, there's really nothing else that they have. 01:00:22
We've done architecturally to mitigate the fact that they're doing an addition. In other words, it looks like an addition. 01:00:29
That just. 01:00:39
It's got too much. 01:00:44
Mass messing to me and it should have, you know, it should maybe have a roof line or something that creates just more of a a nod 01:00:46
to. 01:00:52
The architectural style of of the existing home. 01:00:58
If I may, I would just suggest that. 01:01:05
Adding a roofline would result in more massing and more loss of light and air, especially as it faces the windor's. I think this 01:01:08
design, I'll be it again, aesthetically not. 01:01:17
Pleasing. 01:01:27
Reserves the most lightened air. 01:01:30
For the neighbors. 01:01:35
So again. 01:01:37
I don't know. As I thought about it, I don't know what more can be done. 01:01:39
Given the configuration, the nature, the nature that of this property being a duplex giving the the ingress, you know, area of the 01:01:44
front unit. 01:01:49
What else you can do? 01:01:57
Other than add more mass, extend further into the green space. 01:02:00
In order to. 01:02:07
Allow the development of this line. 01:02:10
I appreciate the aesthetic objection, but I don't. 01:02:14
I don't think that. 01:02:19
It's disqualifying given all of the the difficulties that this project presents. 01:02:21
And I appreciate that. I just want to clarify from my own again from reiterate from my perspective that for me the fertile that 01:02:33
I'm not able to leap over is architectural guideline number 7. And that's not really, that's not a aesthetic. 01:02:43
Point, but a good neighborly point. 01:02:55
And I do think. 01:03:01
Again, reiterate again, I don't think this is the right forum for us to. 01:03:04
Design, we don't have the time or the expertise to, you know, try to throw out new designs. That's something I think would be a 01:03:10
disservice for us to do that. Redesigning something should take many, many hours and thought to to do. 01:03:20
But I think that I it seems to me that there is ample opportunity and land. 01:03:30
For a design that would not only meet the applicant's needs, but also appropriately comport with our guidelines. 01:03:38
And I just. 01:03:53
Want to say one last thing. And if there were a roofline, let's say that we added, I certainly would not want it on the rear of 01:03:54
the property. What I was thinking is if the shape was totally different and you had. 01:04:01
More of a well it doesn't matter, but if you if you incorporated some type of a roof line or something that broke up the monotony 01:04:10
of that horizontal. 01:04:15
Box or rectangle? 01:04:21
That to me would would enhance it so. 01:04:28
I don't, we don't, I don't need to be labored anymore. No, I think it is, it is a challenge because there's trade-offs and if we 01:04:34
balance it with a roofline or additional massing, then we're yeah, adding massing. So I think it is just a trade off and I I'm 01:04:40
more inclined. I, I think I'm agreeing with member Huff. Just I'm not sure how much better we're going to get or how many options 01:04:46
will will be enough. 01:04:51
Or. 01:04:57
Just considering the constraints of this of this property in this location, this project the needs the existing dwelling. 01:05:00
Although I do believe in design and design solutions. 01:05:11
I'm inclined to. 01:05:18
To support the project. 01:05:20
But they are a little bit divided here so. 01:05:23
I guess I would. 01:05:28
Someone would like to make a motion. 01:05:32
Move to approve the project. 01:05:37
Point of order, may I just this is a. 01:05:40
No recommendation. So it's you would the motion would be moved to a recommend approval to the Planning Commission. 01:05:44
May I just ask? 01:05:54
In terms of appropriate motions that could be made a motion to. 01:05:57
Deny or. 01:06:03
Well, no. A motion to disapprove the the plans to the. 01:06:07
Planning Commission is not an acceptable motion, is that correct? 01:06:14
Well, I actually believe that since it is a recommendation. 01:06:19
That could be made. I'm not as as director, Vaughn had said. 01:06:24
Last meeting is that this is a housing project, so denial of a housing project so that you're not denying you're making a 01:06:32
recommendation. Again, those recommendations should be based on the number of guidelines. 01:06:39
That you would like to use and with specifics to those guidelines. 01:06:48
So if you know if you are going to make a recommendation, I would add those guidelines. 01:06:54
To to your your recommendation one way or the other. But if you do feel that it meets the guidelines or more guidelines than not, 01:07:01
then that recommendation to to approve would also be made. 01:07:08
Thank you. So I guess I paid in our Felice stated my motion if I could restate it. I I I moved to recommend approval of 01:07:19
architectural permit 23-0346 to the Planning Commission. 01:07:26
I will second that motion. 01:07:35
And we'll do roll call because member Huff is remote. 01:07:38
Member Huff. 01:07:45
Aye, member boy. 01:07:46
Aye. 01:07:49
Vice Chair Boyle and Secretary Brooks. 01:07:52
With a tie vote with two eyes and two nays, the vote fails. Another motion can be made. 01:07:59
Through the chair to the chair. 01:08:16
Do we want to consider? 01:08:19
Asking the applicant whether or not they would like to come back to the board another time or what their preferences do. I don't 01:08:22
know if that's something we want to consider or not. Look to staff that is an option to. 01:08:29
There's always an option if there's a potential for redesign if they're if they don't feel that, you know, we have two members who 01:08:39
feel like there's not much more design from that that can be done. And and then two that feels like there are. I think that the 01:08:47
thing that I look at and this is just, you know, is that we have given them guidance and 35 is new. That was that was not. 01:08:55
Seven was was existing, so there were a number of others that were there that are have been eliminated. 01:09:05
So any guidance that you give them to move forward if they have addressed those items that you've asked for doing something new 01:09:10
is, is. 01:09:15
I mean. 01:09:21
This is a new design. So but you're, you're also putting it and I will say one of the reasons why there aren't full sets of plans 01:09:23
for this is because it will be going to the Planning Commission at one point. And since it is. 01:09:29
In essence, in a design review. 01:09:36
You know, putting an extra burden on an applicant to to do full plan set so that you can. 01:09:39
Recommend denial and change, which is fine but but it was requested so that that was we did feel it was enough to to provide so I. 01:09:45
You may ask the the applicant if they want to change design or if they're willing to go without a recommendation from the the ARB 01:09:56
as having a failed recommendation or a failed motion. 01:10:03
Would you like to come up and? 01:10:11
Speak. 01:10:13
We'll invite the applicant, Mr. Gateship. 01:10:15
I'm Jim Gish, that contractor. 01:10:20
I don't know how much more we could do, like with the roof line and things like that. One thing possibly that could be addressed 01:10:23
is the. 01:10:28
You mentioned where that front door, you know, like that set back, maybe that could be pushed out towards Lobos that would make 01:10:35
that wall. 01:10:40
You wouldn't have that chopped up. I think that might be an option, but. 01:10:47
Again for the client that changes you know or cost and time as a critical. 01:10:53
We'd like to get them their access and their. 01:11:04
Wheelchair and access outside. Can't really start anything any of those until this is agreed on. So I. 01:11:08
I think that's all I have to offer. Yeah, thank you. And I did have a question for staff on that actually if a portion of this 01:11:21
project could be a. 01:11:25
I guess heard or just like a building permit the the the lift for the the back entrance of that could be a parallel path or 01:11:32
potentially I mean, one of the things that we always look at not that not in this case a piece mealing project. So we try not to 01:11:40
piece meal projects. There are two we have two, two lifts that are part of this project and 1:00. 01:11:48
Requires the emergency exit, so. 01:11:56
So the interior lift has to wait until there's an approval for the stairs because we need to have the stairs for ingress and 01:12:03
egress. The other we've we've already checked with our building official's. 01:12:09
And he does prefer to have everything at once in this case. 01:12:16
Because it is part of the one application, it's kind of hard to split them up and make them too. 01:12:26
So where we are today, I guess with the failed recommendation is that it would and it was intended to be heard by Planning 01:12:34
Commission and they would just make a decision. 01:12:39
That's. 01:12:46
So, so that is, yes, so I understand the procedural aspects. So no further motion I suppose needs to be made from the board 01:12:50
because there has been a denial or it has never mind, there has been a denial because the motion, the motion has not been 01:12:56
approved, assuming that the applicant doesn't want to. 01:13:02
Redesign and come back to the ARB. This would now just be pushed forward to the Planning Commission. Is that accurate? Essentially 01:13:10
the the other again being a recommendation and there is no permit that's being provided for a recommendation to approve your 01:13:16
recommendation can include. 01:13:22
I would like it to look prettier. I'm sorry I was sitting down, but there were certain things that, you know, writing down the 01:13:29
order or you know, have the PC consider these these things. 01:13:35
Your the other thing that you could be doing as as the board in these recommendations is informing the Planning Commission and we 01:13:43
will I will do that in my report to the Planning Commission to say, you know, I'll list these reasons that I heard today to the 01:13:49
Planning Commission of why there was a tie vote. I'm going to list. 01:13:55
Both on both sides of these and so that is a potential, but you could also make a new motion with a recommendation. We recommend 01:14:03
the Planning Commission add a wall of screens to to protect privacy, but that's not necessarily so you're not. 01:14:11
It's really the next step is really their discretion this for you, this is a lot of time for a recommendation, but you can you're 01:14:20
kind of since it is a recommendation, you're kind of open to to options. Your first of first failed motion doesn't necessarily 01:14:29
have to be the only motion, but it can stand if, if, if you guys are OK moving forward with a timeout. 01:14:38
Is that? 01:14:48
Excuse me, Cher Bernstein, Joe Sidor with CDD the. 01:14:53
Board could choose to not make a recommendation and that would be the recommendation or or the decision going forward to the 01:15:04
Planning Commission that the the board decided to not make a recommendation on this project. If I could, I guess I'm getting a 01:15:10
little. 01:15:17
Confused and hung up when you're using the term recommendation as opposed to motion. I mean if we did a recommendation it would be 01:15:24
through emotion that would need to be approved by at least three of the members. So assuming this may not be the case, but 01:15:33
assuming we don't have a a majority that is willing to approve a motion one way or the other, let's for the sake of argument. 01:15:41
We can't really recommend anything. 01:15:51
Besides what our discussion has already put forth today, and in that case. 01:15:54
There would be nothing further for the board to do. We would just have a failed motion and then it would proceed on to the 01:16:01
Planning Commission. I'm just trying to understand the procedure. That is correct. If you wanted to let it stand right here, 01:16:06
that's what it will take to the Planning Commission if that's what the applicant desires at this point. 01:16:11
Or we could make a recommendation up to the Planning Commission for a redesign of the project, citing Guidelines 35 and Guidelines 01:16:18
7 as the guiding forces. 01:16:24
But it would need to be approved by at least three of the members, right? It's just an alternate motion. 01:16:43
It's your Lawrence, if I may. If no one is willing to make a second motion, you may just say we'll, we'll let that motion stand as 01:17:01
is and and the applicant can take that to the Planning Commission. That is an option. 01:17:08
Yes. 01:17:16
All right then. 01:17:18
Yep, then the motion. 01:17:21
And Carrie as is and. 01:17:23
We'll be going to Planning Commission. 01:17:27
OK. Thank you. 01:17:29
Thank you all. Moving on to agenda item. 01:17:37
Beef. 01:17:43
We'll wait for Member 7 to return. 01:17:46
Welcome back. 01:17:52
All right, we will start. 01:18:01
Now Architectural permit AP and Administrative use permit 24 Dash 00174224 Congress Ave. May we have the staff report? 01:18:04
One second, we're just getting the PowerPoint up. 01:18:16
Good afternoon, Chair Bornstein and board members. The project before you is Architectural Permit Administrative Use Permit 240017 01:18:55
and is located at 224 Congress Ave. and involves a first and second story addition to the existing residence as well as outdoor 01:19:03
improvements to the property. 01:19:10
The 3550 square foot lot is located at the southwest corner of Short St. and Congress Ave. in the area in an area of medium to 01:19:22
large one and two-story single family residences in the second edition neighborhood and R1 zoning district. 01:19:31
The lot is currently developed with the one story single family residence and detached garage totaling 1110 square feet. 01:19:41
The proposed project would include a 119 square foot addition to the rear elevation on the 1st floor. 01:20:00
A 22 square foot addition to the South elevation first floor and a 621 square foot second floor addition resulting in a 1872 01:20:08
square foot two-story residence with an attached garage. 01:20:15
The project would include outdoor improvements that comprise of a 281 square foot patio with a garden trellis and a 14 square foot 01:20:22
wood burning fireplace. 01:20:28
As designed, the project would conform to most applicable development regulations, including but not limited to building height, 01:20:39
gross floor area, and allowable site and building coverage. The existing north side yard set back is non conforming. The proposed 01:20:47
garden trellis would encroach into the set back and the privacy screening in the rear of the yard would exceed the allowed height 01:20:54
limit. However, the applicant has applied for an administrative use permit that would allow for the. 01:21:01
Side yard setbacks which would bring both side yard setbacks into conformance. It would allow a garden structure exceeding the set 01:21:09
back standards and allow privacy screening exceeding the height limits. 01:21:15
A large Cypress tree resides in the southeast portion of the property. However, the additions do not appear to have an impact on 01:21:26
the tree. As a precaution, staff has added a condition to approval a condition of approval to the draft permit to include tree 01:21:33
protection standards during construction. The states prior to issuance of the building permit, the project Arborist, shower view, 01:21:41
grading, drainage, utility building and landscape plans to determine required minimum tree protect. 01:21:48
Standards during construction. 01:21:56
This elevation shows the proposed view from Congress Ave. 01:22:01
Be the front facade. 01:22:06
And staff recommends the Architectural Review Board up. 01:22:12
Approve the architectural permit subject to findings, conditions of approval, and Class One category categorical exemption. Thank 01:22:17
you. 01:22:21
Right. Thank you. 01:22:26
There are no questions for staff. We can invite the applicant up if you'd like to make a presentation. 01:22:28
Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Anatoly Astridsov. I'm the project architect. 01:22:42
Thank you, Mary, for the presentation. And we work closely for several months with the staff to make some revisions. And you saw 01:22:48
the final version which was brought to all the compliance with ordinances and setbacks and regulations as you noticed, I believe 01:22:57
you all saw the property and what you see is a big tree which is basically blocks the access to the property. 01:23:06
And the other half of the property, if you look from the Congress. 01:23:16
As the house on the right hand side with three foot minimum set back to the north property and driveway to the garage, that's it. 01:23:19
And right now my client, they're using the driveway is an outdoor space. And as a result of the negotiation with the neighbor on 01:23:26
the South there a couple of years ago, maybe last year, they made a lot line adjustment and obtain some additional property which 01:23:34
will be used for outdoor use that's where. 01:23:41
Build with your approval, we will build a trellis which will provide privacy for people who has two-story house on the southwest 01:23:49
corner. So that's as we heard the previous discussion, the privacy is a very big issue in city of Pacific Grove and we try to 01:23:57
address it as much as we could. We maintain existing houses and we build a second Storey edition on the second part of the house, 01:24:04
so. 01:24:11
When you look at the house from the Congress, you will not see this second story edition as a Balkan mass in front of the house. 01:24:19
It will be sitting in the rear, which will provide more gradual architectural appearance within the block and existing garage will 01:24:26
be used as. 01:24:33
Story for the small tower like looking Second story edition, which will be used as an office. 01:24:41
And that's the idea of the project. If you have any questions, I'm ready to answer. 01:24:48
Just have one first. Do you know why it's called the opposite house? 01:24:55
Well, I, I have the owner Barbara, their call is here. She might answer this question better. But as I understand the opposite 01:24:59
house, because it's, it's, it's not as city house, it's very small. You know, the existing square footage is only 940 square feet. 01:25:07
So it's opposite because it's very comfy, very comfortable, cozy, and it brings joy and calm. 01:25:16
Sense compared to the bigger or city like house they. 01:25:25
Thank you for that. Yeah, I have a question as well. I'm looking at drawings a 2.0 and under eaves and gutters there's a photo of 01:25:31
a home. 01:25:37
But it doesn't look like this home. So is that the photo of what the color palette is supposed to be or just the eaves? I'm not 01:25:43
sure what I'm looking. Yeah. He just pulled it up on the screen. Thank you. Yes, if you if you're talking about the house below 01:25:48
Eves and gutters. 01:25:53
Yes, subject, right. So it's an example of the zero Eve gutter because right now they want to make sure yeah, right now they have 01:25:58
Eve like traditional eaves 12 inches long, but it's a city of Pacific Grove doesn't allow any protrusion into three feet set back. 01:26:06
And we if we will build a second story and and we will match existing conditions, we will be violating violating this. 01:26:14
Requirement so we and we don't want to cut. 01:26:23
If the new edition and leave at the old edition. So we would like to bring the whole house in conformity and make it look more 01:26:28
like a Spanish Revival style, Yeah. 01:26:33
OK, thank you. I just got. 01:26:39
I thought that's what I was looking at but I wanted to make sure. Thank you. 01:26:41
I just had one more question. 01:26:46
And you touched on it and I was just kind of curious, but regarding the property line, so obviously there is this fence currently 01:26:50
right next to the garage. Is that so that was the property line at some point. And then this the property to the, the land to the 01:26:58
South was now purchased. And so the property line extends to about about 3 feet from that neighboring garage. 01:27:07
It's it's more like 10 feet, yeah. So they bought probably 10 feet over the S right. But now the, the, the South. 01:27:15
Property line is now at a point where it is 3 feet or so from that neighboring South. 01:27:25
Property, am I making sense? I'm not sure it'd be from where the where the garage, yes, you're making sense, but I don't think it 01:27:34
is and I think Garrett can speak to that, yeah. 01:27:38
Yeah, the lot line adjustment has been approved and recorded with the assessors office and they wouldn't do in a lot line 01:27:44
adjustment. 01:27:48
And make the nonconformity. Sorry, what is the set back of the neighboring garage to the current lot line on the South? Are you 01:27:53
talking about rear set back or side set back? I guess it's the side. 01:28:01
Side set back elevation right. 01:28:10
Of course, sorry point of order, there is no let that fence, there is no lot line there. 01:28:13
So the fence is in the yard, right? OK. So you were asking where the setback is from where? 01:28:19
It's. It doesn't really matter, but. 01:28:27
There is a neighboring garage on the to the South of the house. 01:28:31
A neighboring garage, right? There's a garage if I'm if I'm on the street looking straight at the house to the left, there is 01:28:38
there is a undeveloped plot of land which we're they're going to develop the trellis and this garage, correct? OK, My question is 01:28:45
there is a property line somewhere out there that has been a purchase and bought. 01:28:53
How close to that? 01:29:02
How far from that property line is the neighboring garage? Maybe 11 feet? I don't remember actually right, but when the lot line 01:29:04
adjustment was developed through the staff, they definitely took care of all the required setbacks. 01:29:11
I don't think they purchased the entire. 01:29:20
Yeah, yeah, that's correct. 01:29:24
I can put up a lot line adjustment map for you. It's, it's, it's, it's not important. It's OK, OK. 01:29:30
I think that's it for our question. So we'll invite you back if we have any more. Thank you. Thank you. Actually I had a question. 01:29:40
I'm so sorry, apologize. It's OK. I was just curious about the three foot set back with regard to the the South side of the 01:29:45
trellis. 01:29:51
Is that code compliant or is that going to require a variance of some sort? 01:29:58
Well, the combined set back requires 3 feet on one side and. 01:30:05
The difference between I believe the total is 11 feet. So the the different different size on the other side and since the trail 01:30:10
is free standing structure, we have 3 feet actually we moved it already to four feet. So this would be the averaging of of the 01:30:17
side yard setbacks. 01:30:24
See, it's. 01:30:33
One of the trailers would be that's the the administrative use permit that would allow for encroachment of the the trellis into 01:30:37
the side yard set back. 01:30:43
OK. Because there was a supplemental document that had the Red Cloud and I was trying to understand is have you moved the trellis 01:30:54
to four feet or was it trellis being moved to three feet? I couldn't quite understand that supplemental docket. 01:30:59
I got you so the the trellis eaves were encroaching past the three foot so I had the architect move the post 4 feet. 01:31:06
And then the eve of the the trial list is 3 feet from the property line. Thank you. 01:31:19
Thank you. 01:31:30
Right. Is there any public comment on this item, either virtually or in the room? 01:31:31
We have England wins and Dahmer online. 01:31:44
Thank you. 01:31:50
And thank you for your clarifying questions because boy did I have a lot of lot of questions on that one like that lot line, Yes. 01:31:52
And anything that's asking for a use permit is not conforming to. 01:32:01
What's going on in our codes, however? 01:32:10
This one is. 01:32:15
Pretty similar to the last one in that I don't think this fits into the neighborhood at all. I think that the what they're 01:32:17
proposing as far as. 01:32:22
They're raising above. I think the neighbor to their side has definite concerns about. 01:32:29
Windows. We've got a lot of windows looking down, and we've got. 01:32:37
Well, I'm having trouble ascertaining, but I don't think it blends in the neighborhood, and certainly not that poor little house 01:32:45
next door. 01:32:49
And the only ones that seem to be getting privacy out of this. 01:32:56
Are the ones building so I don't know. 01:33:02
And the distance between the fence heights. 01:33:08
The six and the four and raising it up and. 01:33:12
I think you have a lot of questions to ask ask about this because. 01:33:19
I I don't know. And if they're asking to average too, it's like, well, they're deficient in some way. So it really has too many 01:33:26
windows facing down to their poor little side house that's. 01:33:34
That wrote the letter also. So we have another problematic one here, and it should be thoroughly, thoroughly discussed amongst 01:33:42
you. Thank you very much. 01:33:49
Thank you for your comments. 01:33:58
Being no other virtual hands raised and no one approaching the podium, we will close public comment and bring it back to the board 01:34:05
for discussion. 01:34:10
Oh, oh, pardon. Yes. Welcome. Yeah. 01:34:17
These are our neighbors across the street. They came to Pacific Grove about 10 years ago, and they're delightful people. I'm 01:34:25
sorry. Through the chair. Could you tell us your name? Earl Edmonds. 01:34:30
And they made even the garage, the driveway has been a social point of our whole neighborhood. That's the kind of neighbors these 01:34:37
people are. But then they started having grandchildren and started wondering where are they going to put them? And so who did they 01:34:44
talk to 1st? I think we were one of the first couples they talked to. Then they went around the whole neighborhood and talked to 01:34:51
people and said this is what we're interested in doing. 01:34:59
And what do you think about it? 01:35:06
And they listen to us and I just appreciate that. And they're going to be a wonderful, wonderful welcome couple to the community. 01:35:08
Thank you. 01:35:21
Hello, I'm Jeff Edmonds, neighbor right across the street. 01:35:35
Really appreciate you guys volunteering your time to do a very difficult job. 01:35:39
And you're doing a good job of it. 01:35:44
My only comment about what you're doing right now is if you please just speak into the microphones, you can hear a lot better out. 01:35:47
There's a lot of. 01:35:51
Buzzing. And you know, we just can't hear everything. 01:35:56
I'm totally in favor of the project. I look right at it for my living room window and I think it's going to be really a really 01:35:59
nice project. They're going to look, I have a second story. They're going to have extra bedrooms. We're going to have a much 01:36:04
better floor plan. 01:36:09
And I do love the outside area. 01:36:15
With the fireplace and the patio, really very sunny right there. So that's a good patio for that. 01:36:18
So I have no objections. I don't think anyone in the neighborhood does. I think they should go ahead and build it. So I have to 01:36:26
say thank you. Thank you for your comments and feedback. 01:36:31
All right, bring it back to the board for discussion. Who would like to begin? 01:36:40
Happy to. 01:36:48
It's well, let me just say that it's really, really refreshing to hear. 01:36:50
That commentary from the neighbors, that's always, always excellent to have in this community. I would I would certainly note that 01:36:57
I didn't see any. 01:37:03
Public comment submitted to the board in opposition at all to the project certainly seem to be reiterated and confirmed there. I, 01:37:10
I think the project is beautiful. I, I, I'm very much in support of it. I like the fact that it is step back away from the street. 01:37:22
I think as we were maybe discussing in the previously earlier on. 01:37:35
During the meeting, you know, when I, when I look at this project, it looks as one new home. It doesn't look as any, you know, 01:37:41
some sort of. 01:37:45
Modular second edition. I think it's going to be a fabulous edition. 01:37:51
And. 01:37:58
That's all I had and it's also again refreshing and great to hear that. 01:38:01
If this is the center of the community that this outside trellis and and fireplace, I'm sure that will lend itself to that as 01:38:07
well. And one final point, very much glad to hear that. 01:38:13
They'll be monitoring of that Cypress tree during construction because that tree is just stunning and gorgeous. I spent a lot of 01:38:21
time just looking at that. 01:38:25
Very nice to have on on the property as well, but very much in support of the plans and project. 01:38:30
Thank you. And I just do want to add that we did receive one. 01:38:35
Piece of public comment from the next door neighbor at 222 Congress that did have privacy concerns and their single story home. 01:38:40
Thank you for mentioning that, I must have missed that. 01:38:47
I can go next. Can you guys hear me? 01:38:53
If I'm writing some of the microphone, I. 01:38:57
Thank you for all the comments, that really did help me out when I first saw the drawings it. 01:39:00
Felt like a big suburban home. And then when I stood there on the street and I remember that was the house with the fabulous tree. 01:39:05
I've admired the tree for a long time. All of a sudden I could could see how it how it came together. So it made a lot more sense 01:39:09
to me. 01:39:14
I do appreciate the neighbors concerns. It is a lot of Windows A. 01:39:19
But I I don't see an alternative in the design feels good to me, so I I'm willing to give up my approval. 01:39:23
I'll go. 01:39:42
I echo my colleagues sentiments Neighbors neighborhood support to me is one of the primary factors and and here I hear support 01:39:45
part. I was respectful of the neighbors the the adjacent neighbors views, but again I think that I. 01:39:53
The windows themselves don't present that type of intrusion. There's considerations of light and as well in the static as well. I 01:40:03
think the project overall aesthetically is is going to be a fantastic improvement to the neighborhood and I do absolutely also 01:40:10
appreciate how they are developing the outdoor space as well. I completely AM. 01:40:17
Endorse this project. 01:40:25
I think this is great. 01:40:34
I. 01:40:40
I just really appreciate the thoughtful. 01:40:43
Thoughtfulness and then design the cohesiveness that taking into account the outdoor living space it's it's not. 01:40:48
Maxing out every single last bit of. 01:41:02
Of space. 01:41:08
Thank you for not putting on a rooftop deck. 01:41:13
I, I just, I really think this is beautifully designed. I, I have no other comments other than that I think it's. 01:41:17
They I think they hit it out of the park. 01:41:28
I concur with the members here, very thoughtful, nice design and where we do appreciate all public input and just acknowledging 01:41:32
the neighbors privacy concerns living in a single story home. Again, it's just kind of the trade off of living in our beautiful 01:41:40
dense urban city and I did take note that the upper level rooms that would be. 01:41:49
Over overlooking that property or. 01:41:59
Two bedrooms in a bathroom. So not primary living spaces, more secondary. 01:42:02
But I appreciate how you kind of oriented the outdoor space on the other side too. That's natural with the the layout of the lot. 01:42:08
But that I think will afford that neighbor more privacy too if you're kind of recreating outside. 01:42:15
In this really nicely designed patio. So I think we're all in support of this project and would somebody like to make a motion? 01:42:24
I can make a motion, a motion to approve as it's written. 01:42:33
2nd. 01:42:39
Get A roll call. 01:42:40
Member said aye, Secretary Brooks Aye Chair Bornstein. 01:42:45
The Vice chair Boyle aye and member Huff aye. 01:42:51
With Five Eyes and 0 nays, the motion passes. 01:42:58
Thank you. 01:43:03
All right. Moving on to our last item on the agenda. 01:43:07
Item C. 01:43:12
Architectural permit 24-0051 at 985 Piedmont Ave. 01:43:14
May we have a staff report? 01:43:23
It did. 01:43:32
Yeah. 01:43:39
Good afternoon, Cheryl Bondstone and board members. I'm Joseph Sedo with CDD. 01:43:47
And the project Before You Know is located at 985 Piedmont Ave. in the Del Monte Park neighborhood. 01:43:52
The 53110 square foot interior lot is located on the South side of the intersection of Piedmont and Moreland Avenues in an area of 01:44:01
medium to large multi story single family residences and multifamily apartment buildings in the R1 zoning district. The lot is 01:44:09
currently vacant, yet has an existing water meter connection confirmed by Calam. 01:44:17
As proposed, the project would include the construction of a 2683 square foot two-story single family residence including an 01:44:30
attached 517 square foot garage. The residents would also include a 143 square foot open deck above the lower level which would 01:44:37
overlook the street, and a 228 square foot rear patio. As designed, the project would confine to all applicable development 01:44:44
regulations. 01:44:51
This elevation shows the proposed view from Piedmont Ave. 01:45:00
As well as the proposed exterior colors and materials. 01:45:04
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board approve the architectural permit subject to the findings, conditions of approval 01:45:11
and Class 3 categorical exemption. This concludes staff presentation and I'm available for questions as well as the applicant. 01:45:17
Thank you. 01:45:22
There are no questions for staff. We'll invite the applicant to make a presentation if they would like. 01:45:30
Hi, my name is Alan Robinson. I've been an architect in the area for about 40 years. 01:45:43
So. 01:45:50
I do. I'm here to answer questions. I would say looking at the elevation says probably more important than looking at the front 01:45:52
color elevation because this is a a really tricky site. Mr. Wilson Senior bought these lots and had the foresight to put water 01:45:58
meters on there. So that's why we're doing this. There's no variances required, no. 01:46:05
Everything fits in there, and it's also a recognizable architectural style. 01:46:13
It's a Craftsman style. 01:46:20
And that was from 1905 to 1920, pretty fomented by the green and green people in Los Angeles was short lived because it happened 01:46:23
to be one of the most expensive kinds of architecture you could do so anyway. Also, I was on architecture board for 12 consecutive 01:46:29
years in Monterey. So I feel your pain and consternation when it comes to something like the early one. Today, however, I would 01:46:36
like to introduce you to this book. This is called. 01:46:43
Field Guide to American homes. Have you seen this before? OK. 01:46:50
Pretty good, right. So if you were to turn to page 435, you would see that I have checked all the the things for Craftsman style, 01:46:54
the bar drafters, the low pitch roof and all that. But more importantly that we have a lot of things going on with building today 01:47:00
and solar is important. We have to have solar. 01:47:06
So I needed to find a way to get that S phasing sun on the front of the house. So if you look at the side elevations, I think it 01:47:13
would pretty much tell a lot more and the building sections than that front elevation for colors only so you can see that. 01:47:20
We are sloping up the hill and this is not an easy site. There's a big cross slope there and there's a Cliff in the back. If you 01:47:28
went and saw the flagging, did you see the flagging? So we kind of were sort of limited to where we could site the house. But 01:47:34
anyway, I hope you found it pleasing. And we worked hard on this. We got the civil engineers to give us a plan because I wasn't 01:47:41
going to try to tackle that site myself. 01:47:47
So Mr. Wilson would like to be here today, except he is birthing his grandchild today and the people there are going to be living 01:47:54
in this house so. 01:47:59
If we could birth this project today, he'd have A2 Fer and so that would be great. Any questions, I'm here to answer them if you 01:48:04
need be and I appreciate. 01:48:09
Approval this project. Thank you. I I do have one question, nobody else does. Just a question about the materials, the windows, 01:48:15
the mill guard. I think it's the V400 series, Tuscany series. 01:48:22
Ricardi in Suburbano, which is I think OK in this area. But the the divided lights, will those be simulated divided lights? 01:48:31
Actually they're going to be, I'm working. Maybe we're not going to use Milgard. We're going to maybe use something else because 01:48:38
Milgard is changing their product right now. It's big time changes without they got rid of them. 01:48:45
Some of the lines are doing, so we may be doing something else, but we're going to reach that aesthetic there and so. 01:48:53
On Windows schedule to get the Title 24 completed, but this is our first attempt at the sings. There's going to be some shopping 01:49:02
involved probably, but I think we're going to go with the style. So I'd like to true divided lights myself. OK, Yes, I think 01:49:07
that's where I was getting that versus. I want to be consistent with the thing. I don't like the little millions inside the air 01:49:13
bucket thing. They look kind of hokey. Neither do we. Yeah. Thank you. 01:49:19
The same. Thank you for that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Any other questions? 01:49:25
I think we're good. We'll invite you back if we. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. 01:49:30
That any public comment online or in the room. 01:49:37
We have Inga, Lorenston, Dahmer. 01:49:45
Thank you. 01:49:50
I think it's a design that actually fits the lot. I wish the garage door weren't so prominent in the front, but. 01:49:53
That is a tricky lot and I think the architect did a good job. 01:50:05
As I said, my only comment would be the garage door being so prominent, so thank you very much. 01:50:11
Thank you. 01:50:22
Any other public comments? 01:50:25
All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 01:50:28
Love it. 01:50:38
I think it's. 01:50:40
Yeah, I think it's really nice. I. 01:50:41
It's, I don't know, to me, it's always exciting to. 01:50:48
Take an empty lot and have a family live there. I think the architectural style is wonderful and I'm excited about this project. 01:50:53
I can go next. I enjoy the style a lot. I did not realize that lot was there so it's fascinating to drive up to it. And I was 01:51:10
anticipating what the neighbors would say with the heights and then I realized that that Cliff is so ridiculously hall it was a 01:51:16
non issue. So no, Nicely done, it's good house. 01:51:22
Echo. 01:51:33
Colleagues Statements No. 01:51:35
It complies with the municipal codes. There's no conflicts with any of our guidelines that I can see and I didn't see any concerns 01:51:39
raised by the public, so in support of the project. 01:51:44
I agree, difficult lot, great improvement to the neighborhood. Completely support the project. 01:51:52
I agree as well. 01:52:00
Very nice layout, very strategic, the way you were able to fit the bedrooms in. And then I always like to review the plans before 01:52:03
I see the site. And so I thought that was kind of an interesting. 01:52:08
You know, the the lines of the house and then it's you go by the side. It's like, oh, just plug right in. Yeah, it just fits that 01:52:15
site so well and able to get 4 bedrooms and just the proportion. 01:52:22
All of it is just really thoughtful and. 01:52:31
I support this project. 01:52:37
Who would care to make a motion? 01:52:41
I can do that. I move to approve it as written. 01:52:44
2nd. 01:52:50
All right, maybe get A roll call. 01:52:53
Members open. 01:52:56
Secretary Brooks. 01:52:59
Aye, member enough. 01:53:01
Hi strip oil. 01:53:03
Aye, and Chair Bornstein, Aye. 01:53:07
With Five Eyes 0 nays, the motion passes. 01:53:10
Thank you. And with that, I'll adjourn the meeting 453 and our next meeting is July 9th. 01:53:14
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.
Right. Welcome. I will call the Architectural Review Board meeting to order. It is Tuesday, June 11th. And before we have a roll 00:00:00
call, I'll announce that member David Huff is participating remotely. 00:00:07
And I will ask for a motion to approve his remote attendance and participation. So moved. 00:00:14
2nd. 00:00:22
Right, all in favor. 00:00:24
Aye. 00:00:27
OK. 00:00:32
And we will invite him into the room. 00:00:33
Give me a moment to make sure this is. 00:00:39
Good morning, good evening, Good afternoon, everybody. 00:00:43
OK. Hi, David. 00:00:46
OK. So to facilitate your remote attendance, I believe I will just ask if you are alone in the room or if there's anybody over 18 00:00:50
in the room with you. I'm alone. 00:00:57
Sorry, he just got bumped the panel, this all right? 00:01:09
I'm alone in the room. It's a but it's an open conference room and the agenda is posted outside. 00:01:15
Excellent. Thank you. May we have a roll call? 00:01:22
Chair Bornstein. 00:01:30
Member 2nd. 00:01:33
Member Boyle or Vice Chair Boyle here, Secretary Brooks here, and Member Hoff. 00:01:36
Here we have 5 present. We have a quorum. 00:01:42
All right. We'll move on to item number two, approval of the agenda. 00:01:48
Make it a motion to approve the agenda. 00:01:53
So moved. 00:01:58
I'll second that. 00:02:01
All right, maybe get A roll call. 00:02:04
Secretary Brooks. 00:02:07
Hi. 00:02:10
Vice Chair Boyle. 00:02:11
Chair Bornstein, member Sutton and member Huff. 00:02:14
0 nays the agenda is approved. Excellent. We'll now move on to item number three, board and staff announcements. Are there any 00:02:22
board or staff announcements? 00:02:28
None from the board. Any staff announcements? All right. 00:02:37
We'll move on to item number 4, Council liaison announcements. I see Debbie Beck. Welcome, Debbie. Thank you. Good afternoon, 00:02:41
Chair and Commissioners. At our June 5th Council meeting, we had our first reading of an ordinance to adopt fiscal year 2425 00:02:49
budget. The second reading will happen on June 19th and then we also received our quarter three CIP report. 00:02:57
And that's all I have for today. Have a great meeting. 00:03:06
Thank you. 00:03:09
We'll move to general public comment. Are there any members of the public, either on Zoom or in the room, that wish to speak to 00:03:12
items not on the agenda? If so, please raise your hands virtually or step up to the podium. 00:03:19
Seeing no hands raised, we will close general public comment. 00:03:34
And then we don't have any items on the consent agenda. So we will move point of order. May I really quickly remember half I 00:03:39
believe if if available, I believe we have to have this video on for. 00:03:45
For the recording. 00:03:52
Yeah, I'm on a zoom. I can, I don't. 00:03:55
There should be a video here. 00:04:03
One second. 00:04:06
There you go. 00:04:15
Thank you. 00:04:17
Excellent. 00:04:21
OK, we'll move right along to our regular agenda. 00:04:22
Under item A, we'll start with architectural permit AP23-0346 at 206 Lobos Ave. And before we begin, I'll ask board members, is 00:04:27
there anybody that needs to recuse themselves? I do, so I'll be pulling for myself in the room. 00:04:35
All right, Member Stephan will be recusing for this item, so we'll just give for a moment. 00:04:44
May we have this staff report please? 00:05:06
Yes, good afternoon, Chair Bornstein and board members. Today I'm presenting Architectural permit 230346 proposed project at 206 00:05:10
Lobos Ave. 00:05:15
The project was first presented at the May 14th regular meeting and I'd like to actually make a correction for my staff report I 00:05:21
mistakenly wrote March 12th. So for the record, I want to make sure that it's known that it was May 14th. Upon review and and 00:05:28
deciding Architectural Review Guidelines numbers 5728 and 34, the ARB requested a redesign with the primary focus on privacy and 00:05:36
the relocation of the stairway leading from the rooftop terrace to grade. 00:05:43
The applicant agreed to make these revisions based on their comments, and the Board approved a motion to continue the item to 00:05:50
today, June 11th, at the regular meeting. 00:05:55
To recap, it is currently developed with a 1551 square foot two-story duplex, the 400 square foot garage. The dwelling units 00:06:02
consist of a 451 square foot front first floor unit and 1100 square foot two-story unit in the rear. 00:06:10
This project is located in the R4 Zoning district and the General Plan designates this zone is high density residential. It is 00:06:22
developed with the neighborhood is developed with one and two-story residences of varying architectural styles with 400 or 4186 00:06:29
square foot interior. Parcel is located on the West side of Lobos Ave. between Lighthouse Ave. and Short St. The property is not 00:06:36
located in the Coastal zone and is not listed on the city's Historic Resources Inventory. 00:06:43
Before you you have the previously proposed addition, just some other sketches from the top of the revised edition. And the 00:06:54
revised proposal includes the construction of a 358.5 square foot first floor addition to the north side of the existing rear 00:07:01
dwelling unit, which will result in a 1485 square foot residential unit. There will be no change to the front dwelling unit. The 00:07:08
project also includes an additional 2nd floor doorway, a new second floor rooftop terrace. 00:07:15
The new stairway leading to grade. As proposed, the new addition would be in a side yard elevated from Lobos Ave. It's set back 30 00:07:23
feet from the front property line and screened from view from the street by existing fencing vegetation. The public series stairs 00:07:29
to the South of the garage are proposed to be removed and a new exterior lift would be installed for accessibility. Future, 00:07:35
possibly wheelchair accessibility to the rear of the residence. And as mentioned above, the Arab cited Architectural Review 00:07:41
Guidelines 572834. 00:07:47
And requested the ethical revised list. Is the the previously proposed design based on primary primarily on privacy and the 00:07:53
stairway leading to grade? 00:07:58
Just to give you guys a view, these are the. 00:08:08
Previously proposed east elevations. 00:08:12
And the revised east elevation. 00:08:15
We have the previously proposed proposed N elevation. 00:08:19
And the revised N elevation and the stairs here were relocated from the extreme West or rear of the property and moved to the 00:08:24
other side of the proposed bathroom addition, and that Shields the stairs from view from the rear property. 00:08:31
There had been some question and this is intentionally on its side just to to meet what the rest of the design that I'm showing 00:08:43
you. There had been some question about the. 00:08:48
Survey that was conducted and I spoke with the California Certified Land Surveyor, Frank Lucido of Lucido Surveyors. 00:08:55
And he relayed to me that he did meticulous measurements to prepare the site plan, sketch, survey and set markers on the property 00:09:02
by which the builders and the building official can measure distances from the property lines. So you can rest assured, I checked 00:09:08
with him, that this is a valid survey. 00:09:13
Because access to the property is difficult and you can't see too much of the story polls from the street, I did provide some 00:09:21
pictures the the property the applicant allowed me onto the property to and take some pictures I can present to you today. 00:09:29
This is just from the front, just showing where it's difficult to see. 00:09:38
The addition from the street. 00:09:46
And here are the story polls from the northeast corner of the property. 00:09:51
This also from the northeast corner of the property you can see where the netting. Let me see if I can. 00:09:58
This is where the if you can see where my arrow is on both this is where the stairs will be coming down. This is the rear this 00:10:05
this orange netting. Here is the rear bathroom addition and once if if belt would block the stairs from. 00:10:14
The rear of the rear property. 00:10:24
These next few photos show that her architectural review guideline #8 that existing natural vegetation provides privacy screening. 00:10:29
This is taken from the existing balcony. 00:10:40
At the proposed location I. 00:10:45
And you can see that. 00:10:48
Existing these these trees that remain These trees had been planted a while back and will be growing, but they provide. 00:10:51
Privacy screening per architectural review guideline #8. 00:11:01
Colors show that here other properties have used vegetation more because again or for its high density residential that you use 00:11:07
vegetation to block or to to obscure views from their neighbors. That's including everyone. Everyone actually all of the the 00:11:15
surrounding properties have have vegetation. They're doing that. 00:11:24
And as I said, this is high density residential. 00:11:35
And I just also want to demonstrate from this picture, this view from the balcony that. 00:11:38
The properties in the neighborhood are this isn't, it's not an abnormal, it's all dense. These are all properties. This this one 00:11:46
was on the property line. You can see the one in the rear is close to their property line. We have roofs and all of these 00:11:53
properties are bordering. We have another. 00:11:59
Second story balcony that is also at that. So what is being proposed is not abnormal for the R4 district. It is a high density 00:12:07
residential district. 00:12:12
In addition to the privacy concerns, I've spoken with the applicant and they are willing to provide solid or opaque deck guards or 00:12:20
decorative glass. And just to to show this is if if there was opaque, this is the decline these these lines. The top line is is at 00:12:29
the top line of of the the story polls representing the railing and showing that they're willing to do. 00:12:39
Extra measures for. 00:12:51
For privacy views of their neighbors. In addition, that first floor, if you notice the 1st floor addition on either side of the 00:12:55
chimney, on the rear side there are two windows and they are. 00:13:01
They're amenable to using decorative glass, again opaque to allow the sunlight in, but protect views to and from the neighbors. 00:13:07
The materials are proposed to match the existing you have what looks like 9 German or Dutch lap wood siding and and it will all be 00:13:19
complementary to the existing residents. 00:13:25
The existing residences have a non conforming yard setbacks, but as proposed this project would not increase any existing or 00:13:34
create any new nonconformities. The proposed project complies with the zoning regulations and development standards set forth in 00:13:42
in the zoning chapters 23.28 for R4 and 23.64 for general provision provisions and exceptions. The proposed project will require a 00:13:49
use permit for the increase of floor area for a non conforming duplex and that review. 00:13:56
Determination of the use permit and actually the determination also of the architectural permit will be considered concurrently by 00:14:04
the Planning Commission and For these reasons, staff recommends the Architectural Review board recommend approval to the Planning 00:14:11
Commission for architectural permit 230346 subject to the findings conditions of approval and sequel guidelines. 15 three O 1 E 00:14:18
Class 1 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and I am available for available for questions if you have any. 00:14:25
Thank you. 00:14:33
Do we have any questions for staff? 00:14:35
Seeing none, I will invite the applicant up if you'd like to make a presentation or the owner. 00:14:39
And you'll have 10 minutes. 00:14:46
And if you could press the little button so we can hear you. 00:14:50
So yeah, you can hear. 00:15:03
OK, so I'm Barbara Klaus. I, my husband and I are proud owners of the two 06208 Lopez property. I am here today to correct some 00:15:06
misconceptions that were presented to you by a legal firm and the architects that were hired by the Wind Horse. 00:15:18
Hoping to convince you to deny the permit that we need to move on with our plans. 00:15:31
So. 00:15:41
Sorry and I'm a little nervous so. 00:15:46
And I do face it just for this. 00:15:49
OK, so just so you can see what the property looks like now. 00:15:54
OK. 00:16:04
At the May 14th meeting, it was reaffirmed that our plan does meet all the building codes and regulations. 00:16:05
In addition. 00:16:19
Sorry, just. 00:16:28
There in addition, we have received the new site plan, which verifies that our plan is compliant with setbacks and officially 00:16:30
stamped by a surveyor. 00:16:37
Do I aim at this? 00:16:52
There OK, this is a picture which visually demonstrates how close the Winders property is to the property line. It's three inches. 00:16:56
It was a knowledge that the meeting that last meeting that purchasing a property that no longer follows today's required 5 foot 00:17:05
set back can create a burden on the owners. 00:17:13
If for example 206 plants to develop their property. 00:17:22
This burden is now realized as the wind nurse now have issues with our approved plan. 00:17:27
Although our plan follows the five foot set back requirements, their lack of a 5 foot set that creates problems that would 00:17:34
otherwise be non existent. 00:17:40
Which are invasions of privacy, negative impact on views and sunlight, and location of a required emergency exit staircase. 00:17:47
The wind earth's concerns follow falls under good neighbor considerations in the Architectural Review guidelines which are 00:18:07
considered shoulds what one thinks is best, not compulsory or required necessary. 00:18:16
Oh, OK, I'm there. 00:18:36
The Winders claimed that the proposed addition and crouches upon their wait. This is an edge. 00:18:40
I'm so sorry. 00:18:49
So I ended up at this. 00:18:58
All right, thank you. So I need then. 00:19:02
OK, Yeah, that's it back. 00:19:12
Back. 00:19:16
The Winders claim that the proposed addition encroaches upon their privacy and negatively impacts their views. The following 00:19:17
slides will establish that it is actually our privacy that is encroached upon and they're negatively impacted. Views are actually 00:19:25
views of our personal space in our yard. 00:19:33
They claim that we can look directly onto their deck and into their bedroom at their bed. Their master bedroom door sits at the 00:19:46
back of their deck, which is approximately 15 feet away from our shared fence. This area is blocked by our photocarpus, which will 00:19:55
be 20 to 40 feet high and five to six feet wide. 00:20:04
Individually. 00:20:14
At the opposite end of their rooms, the bottom of their windows facing our yard are 6 feet and eight feet above ground level. So 00:20:15
unless we use the ladder, we cannot see into or through into their windows or through their house. 00:20:25
OK. 00:20:36
These slides show photos the Winders provided which demonstrate how they are encroaching our privacy. These are the views which 00:20:38
are being negatively impacted, Not views of the ocean or the golf course or a park or town which in my opinion would be more 00:20:46
interesting, but they are direct sweeping views of our fenced in yard. 00:20:54
The Wind Earths also claim that our new tariffs will encroach on their privacy. 00:21:05
The terrace floor will be at the top of their windows and will be directly facing our Italian buckthorns along the fence. It would 00:21:12
be difficult to look down and then through the windows below the terrace level. 00:21:20
Protocol ****** along their deck also blocks any views from our terrace. And as Aaron said, we would be. 00:21:30
It would be OK for us to get solid railing on the park facing their house. 00:21:40
OK, so we endorse automatically assumed that we will have many windows on their side the 24 foot length of the addition. 00:21:46
We are only adding two windows and only one faces their window which is 6 feet above ground level at its base. Again, one would 00:21:59
need a ladder to look into that window. We would consider installing awnings, tinted texture glass or privacy film. 00:22:10
The Winders have a full length of glass French doors at one end of their sunroom and three skylights above the at the opposite 00:22:28
end. Both bring in lots of sunlight. The windows in their sunroom are screened with vegetation. 00:22:37
On as as they were in the wine doors purchased the property. 00:22:46
Our revised required emergency exit staircase will be sandwiched between our 88 bathroom and 48. It will be set further away from 00:22:54
Windorf property and make it less visible and intrusive. 00:23:03
We request that the Board approves our permit enabling us to meet our current and future aging in place needs. The terrace will 00:23:14
provide us with additional outdoor space large enough to navigate with wheelchair Walker if we were confined upstairs. 00:23:23
An emergency exit staircase will provide a required alternate way to move between upstairs and downstairs in case of fire, medical 00:23:34
emergency or loss of power. 00:23:41
Our plants do not encroach on the endorse, privacy view or sunlight. 00:23:49
We've been part of the PG community since the mid 80s, spending every summer and living next door with my parents. Our children 00:24:00
attended Pacific Grove summer school sessions and our primary medical care has always been in PG. 00:24:09
My father, Robert Dees, played an active role in PG. He was a board member and architectural review board. He was in the Heritage 00:24:18
Society of PG, the Building Standards Committee and the 1989 Centennial Committee. He was president and vice president of the 00:24:27
Heritage Society of PG in 91 and 92. 00:24:36
We are excited that we were able to incorporate some of his ideas. 00:24:46
And Zions into our plan. 00:24:50
We are approaching our late 70s. We need a safe, easy access home which will help meet our aging and place needs. So we asked the 00:24:54
board please approve our permit as our plants will address our needs and will not impact our neighbors. 00:25:03
Perfectly on time, well done. 00:25:16
Do we have any questions for? 00:25:19
Not yet. Thank you. Thank you. 00:25:22
All right. With that we will open public comment. Is there anybody? 00:25:28
On Zoom or in the room that wishes to speak. 00:25:33
You're welcome. 00:25:43
Good afternoon. I'm Rebecca Sadoff and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Kim and Alan Weindorf or the neighbors that live next door to this 00:25:49
project. When this project came before the board last month, the board members noted a number of concerns about this design that 00:25:54
it was disproportionate and out of scale. The rest of the building that need to be sensitive to the location of the deck, so is to 00:26:00
avoid impacting neighbors privacy and of course the blockage of light. While the Windo certainly appreciate the relocation of the 00:26:06
stairs in the redesign. 00:26:12
As the board made clear during the last meeting, that was not the only concern. The architectural review guidelines apply to any 00:26:19
project that comes before this board. 00:26:23
And it's important that applicants continue to abide by those, the recommendations and the guidelines that the RB is going to be 00:26:29
evaluating them by. 00:26:33
As a whole, the redesign largely fails to address the board's concerns expressed during the last meeting, and in some ways makes 00:26:38
those concerns worse. 00:26:41
Privacy and lighting has continued to be a major issue with this redesign. It's the same concerns that the Windorf have been 00:26:46
bringing forward in the last meeting. 00:26:50
The privacy of the wonderful still impacted this terror still extends towards the property line and provides viewpoints into. 00:26:56
The majority of the aspects of the Windor's home. While the removal of the stairway does eliminate the view directly into the wine 00:27:04
doors personal bedroom, it doesn't eliminate the views into the first floor rooms all the way through the front of the building as 00:27:09
well as into the second story guest room and office. 00:27:14
Additionally, the currently existing vegetation as you can see in the photos that have been submitted up to this point. Looking 00:27:20
out of the Wendorf's windows as well as in the Staffs photos provided on the on the PowerPoint, you can see that from that terrace 00:27:26
they're going to have a view into. Anybody on that terrace will have a view into the Reinforce living room window, the one that 00:27:32
slightly set off to the side. 00:27:37
The currently existing vegetation doesn't adequately screen, and on top of that, there's no condition of approval contained within 00:27:45
the permit recommendation that would require its upkeep. 00:27:49
The redesign also exacerbates the lighting issue here. Now, I know that you just looked at some photos that were presented that 00:27:55
appear to be staging photos from real estate websites, where lighting is of course going to be emphasized in whatever way the real 00:28:00
estate agent finds proper. 00:28:06
However, as the board noted in the last one to redesign this solid wall, 5 feet outside the window is going to be an issue for any 00:28:12
neighbors in the architectural review guidelines encourage applicants to consider that in their design and. 00:28:19
The redesign will actually extend the solid wall aspect of this design an additional 6 feet, blocking the light further. 00:28:25
There are a lot of solutions available. This is a large lot. In fact, moving it further off the property line would help to 00:28:33
resolve a lot of these issues. We encourage the board to continue requiring a redesign so that this project can meet the classes 00:28:39
needs as well as their harmonious design for the neighborhood. Thank you. 00:28:45
Thank you. 00:28:51
51 virtual hand raised. 00:28:59
You have Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:29:06
Thank you. 00:29:12
The board This is one of those things that's really going to create lasting problems and especially as it. 00:29:14
This one is obviously contentious between neighbors. 00:29:26
And when these things happen and they're built anyway, believe me for my situation of being in their age group and having this 00:29:34
done to me back in the directors. 00:29:40
Last tenure here in Pacific Grove. 00:29:47
I I still do not speak to those neighbors 15 years later and they're rebuild three times and suing their architect and their 00:29:53
contractor's. 00:29:58
When you have something like this, and yes the Weindorfs are they bought a house. 00:30:06
Too close to the property line, but interpretations of 15 years ago for what is a second story or anything else is not necessarily 00:30:15
and. 00:30:20
The clauses have a large property that it could have been redesigned as the ARB really requested last time, and instead they did 00:30:27
redesign the staircase. Yes, it's better. 00:30:35
But the same contention is going to continue on. 00:30:44
Forever, until as long as those houses are standing and people are living in them. And that is really, really, really too bad, 00:30:51
because that doesn't contribute to PG. 00:30:57
And our community. 00:31:04
Health at all, so you really have. 00:31:09
Your work cut out for you here to decide what you're going to do Thank you. 00:31:15
Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in the room? Any other public comment? 00:31:23
Right, seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. 00:31:30
I'd like to begin. 00:31:37
Well, I have many thoughts this is. 00:31:42
Many thoughts. 00:31:48
Continuing on what? 00:31:51
Inga said. I I can relate. I have a neighbor that's in the process of the same thing and. 00:31:55
It's very uncomfortable so I can. 00:32:03
I can relate to what she was saying and it's it's too bad really. 00:32:07
I. 00:32:12
I don't love what? 00:32:14
What the redesign is? 00:32:19
My my key. 00:32:22
Guideline is #35 I just I think what I. 00:32:25
Was. 00:32:33
What I kept thinking to myself was. 00:32:36
You don't really see it from the street. And then I thought. 00:32:40
That's a terrible reason to approve something. 00:32:46
Because what's on the street is wood. And if that is gone offense there's, you know, you don't have to have a front yard fence, 00:32:51
right? And trees. And if there was a fire and they didn't rebuild, I thought to myself. 00:32:59
Would you be happy? And this is relatively close to my neighborhood, would you be happy with this? 00:33:09
Project. 00:33:19
If there was nothing shielding it from the street and the answer was no. 00:33:22
I just think architecturally it's doing a disservice to the. 00:33:27
Original. 00:33:33
Home and I've got a project. 00:33:35
A home across the street from me that has was approved back in the 90s that they put an addition on and it should have never been 00:33:41
approved. 00:33:45
And it's been under construction for like 5 years trying to make it look good and. 00:33:51
I don't, I don't want to have to approve this and then we're approving a problem for the next owner, you know, trying to fix 00:33:59
something that shouldn't have been approved. We have one chance. 00:34:05
To get this right. I can appreciate that. 00:34:12
They're abiding by, you know, the, the, the codes. 00:34:17
That they need to, but I just think that the design was amiss. 00:34:23
And that's it for now. I'll probably have more, but. 00:34:31
I'll stop. 00:34:35
I want to say that I. 00:34:40
Appreciate the applicant coming up here and providing her. 00:34:44
Their thoughts and I can appreciate the concerns and points that they have raised. 00:34:50
I I am likewise still not in favor of the of this project or these plans. I don't think that for for me personally that they. 00:34:59
Abide by our guidelines, particularly for me, Guideline 7. 00:35:13
And while they do appear to comport with our municipal code, obviously you know the. 00:35:20
Purpose of one of our functions here on the board is to review these proposed plans in light of our guidelines and it keeps it's a 00:35:29
bulk of these guidelines is that new construction should enhance and respect neighborhood compatibility and I don't think that 00:35:37
that has been successfully done here. I think from a stepping back. 00:35:46
Just kind of point of order. 00:35:55
I don't think the plan set is complete. 00:36:00
As I think was mentioned at some point earlier on in the presentation, we don't see AI did not see a proposed elevation from the 00:36:02
from the West elevation. I was a bit disappointed in the fact that from what I could tell, there were there were only three new 00:36:08
pages. 00:36:15
For this new redesign to propose elevations and I think a floor floor plan. 00:36:23
And so just on that alone, it's I don't think we have. 00:36:32
Sufficient. 00:36:41
Documentation to adequately review the plan set and to make an appropriate and educated decision, but. 00:36:44
In terms of my comments at the prior meeting, I do think that the current plans do not comport with architectural guideline #7 I 00:36:56
also agree with it. 00:37:02
Remember Boyle in terms of architectural Guideline 35 as well? I think that's a very good point in terms and I also had the same 00:37:10
thought in terms of the. 00:37:15
The plans here, I, I certainly, I don't, I think they are. 00:37:21
I don't think they're as thoughtful as they could be, and I don't think that when I look at the entire new structure, if I looked 00:37:28
at it from. 00:37:35
An exterior vantage point that I would think that this was one home that was built in at one particular date, which I think is all 00:37:43
in my opinion something that we should always be striving for with any sort of addition. It shouldn't look like an addition. It 00:37:49
should look a cohesive part of the original plan and the original project and it it very much does not here and I do think that 00:37:55
while. 00:38:01
I agree with Sarah in terms of it's difficult to see currently from the street. There are trees out front and and a fence. I think 00:38:08
Sarah Spoil makes a an excellent point that that very well might not always be there. 00:38:14
And if it wasn't, looking at the proposed property project from the street. 00:38:20
It would be. 00:38:29
It wouldn't live up to, I think, our talent standards. So that's what I'll say at the moment. And again, I'm currently not in 00:38:31
support of the plans. 00:38:36
Before I invite member Huff for his comments, I do want to just say that, you know, to some remind ourselves this is a duplex and 00:38:44
I think that's another complexity of this project that it is, you know, basically bifurcated and we have, you know, if we're 00:38:51
looking at it just through the lens of Unit 1 and Unit 2. 00:38:58
It's going to be challenging to have that kind of cohesive intentional. 00:39:06
Look as if it were. 00:39:12
Sure, right, Because you have to have two entries, right, Two points of entry and now we're going to have what two points of entry 00:39:15
and one point of egress. But I still think that the I mean, with that being said and the whole housing element issue, I. 00:39:23
I I still think that it could have been. 00:39:33
So much prettier. 00:39:37
And perhaps would you like to share your comments? Thank you. And I think that's an excellent point about this project being a 00:39:41
duplex. I think I'm going to find myself in place of respectfully disagreeing with my colleagues here because I want to commend 00:39:48
the applicant on at least listening to the ARB and coming back with a better effort. I will agree that I don't believe this is 00:39:54
certainly not going to win any awards for design aesthetics. 00:40:00
But at the same time. 00:40:08
1st in time does not create 1st and right? 00:40:12
And I think the applicant was absolutely spot on when she said that just because, you know, it's the it's the house to the rear 00:40:17
that creates really the non conforming condition that gives us some of our cause to pause, or at least some of my cause to pause 00:40:23
that, you know, when I was thinking about this project, the last meeting. But it doesn't that doesn't mean that they don't have 00:40:29
the right to develop their property, you know. 00:40:36
As well and, and there will be some compromises and sacrifices that come along with that. 00:40:43
Exercising that right, but that is the right. I too have a neighbor to the rear that's building a second story addition right on 00:40:50
the property line. And you know, we don't like it, but it was their right to do it. And so it's frankly, it's not my inclination 00:40:56
to say no to this project because I think they did listen, I think they did remove a really unsightly architectural feature in the 00:41:03
form of the way the exterior stair protruded before. 00:41:10
I think they've done their best to incorporate the the egress element that they are required to have from the second story. Given 00:41:17
the kind of the unique nature of this structure that it's a, it's in fact a multi family home and a multi family residence in in 00:41:24
a, in a neighborhood of single family homes. I think that makes it difficult. I. 00:41:31
And I don't know. 00:41:39
I don't know how much better we can make them do. Given the the ingress door of the front unit of the duplex. We can't really push 00:41:42
this project away from the rear yard much further and and make it feasible. 00:41:50
So, and if you push it, you know, you push it more to the north, I think it, you know, you eliminate more green space. I think 00:42:00
there's no doubt that compromises. 00:42:05
Are required in order to allow the applicant to develop this property, and I think it's their right to do so. I think yeah, OK. Is 00:42:11
it Is it wobblers? Sure it is when it comes to complying with. 00:42:18
Guideline number 7 and guideline #35 I get it, I see it, but at the same time I see an effort to comply with it. I see. 00:42:26
At least a better effort that was done before and I do I'm completely sympathetic to the need of the applicants in order to to 00:42:36
implement these design changes in order to be able to age in place. So with that said, recognizing that this is again, you know, 00:42:43
unfortunately not the best design aesthetic I've seen come before the board. 00:42:50
I think it meets the minimum standards for us to say yes. Thanks. 00:42:58
Thank you. 00:43:05
Yes, this is a tough one. I'll just state that I do agree that we kind of have limited information in terms of the plan sets and 00:43:07
you know maybe some dimensions and window and door schedules. It is a bit limited. I know this was a quick turn, so well done. I 00:43:15
think it's the fastest that I've seen. But with that said, I feel like we can still we have enough information. 00:43:23
To kind of visualize and and. 00:43:32
Determine what what the impacts would be based on the elevations and the survey and the the description that the applicant 00:43:35
provided. 00:43:40
This is a complex area, right? It's a dense urban environment. You have perpendicular backyards. 00:43:46
And the neighboring property is right up there to the fence line. So I think what what I'm hearing us debate and wrestle over more 00:43:53
is the design versus the privacy impacts. Just to be frank, I think that, you know, we all live in in this city and are and have 00:44:00
to compromise with privacy. And that's why we use vegetation for screening. We try to be considerate with our window placement and 00:44:07
sizing. 00:44:14
But. 00:44:22
The the fact is, you know with any kind of addition or expansion, you're just. 00:44:23
There there will be some impacts to privacy and just to speak to the survey too, I know I. 00:44:30
I'm comfortable with the the boundary survey as is just because at least it will guarantee that 5 foot distance for safety versus 00:44:36
potentially we could be encroaching closer to that to that neighbor. So I'm comfortable with that distance I. 00:44:44
As documented by the the surveyor. 00:44:53
So and I just to expand on my comments about being a duplex. So I was trying to visualize this. I know some other. 00:44:56
Options were provided, but it kind of encroached and on the other units front yard. So I was trying to I kind of cut a line down 00:45:04
the middle and trying to visualize it just one unit. 00:45:08
By itself and what I agree with member Huff it it might not be the most amazing design. I I appreciate the the modifications and 00:45:13
adjustments and I did take note there was a little expansion you gained about 40 square feet and I see it to make the bathroom ADA 00:45:21
accessible. 00:45:28
So bringing it back to the board, I think we might be split here because I with that being said, I also support this project. I 00:45:37
appreciate the redesign and and the intention behind it and just recognize this is a duplex and a dense neighborhood. 00:45:46
Just trying to respect the constraints and design around those and you can't, you know, you're not going to scrap the whole house 00:45:57
and start over. So it's what you know, what do you have to work with and how do you mitigate that with accessibility with the with 00:46:03
the duplex multifamily? 00:46:08
So I am in support of this project also. 00:46:16
Happy to entertain more discussion. Sure, we can keep going. 00:46:21
I. 00:46:28
I am thrilled that they moved the stairs. I guess my my. 00:46:38
Umm umm. 00:46:46
I'm just going to keep going back to. 00:46:51
The the view. 00:46:57
From the street. 00:46:59
The front door. 00:47:03
Would it be helpful to project the photo? Would you mind projecting that photo? I mean sure, the photo or or the new revised 00:47:07
plans? 00:47:12
I guess when I keep coming back to is when you look at an addition of a house, whether you're putting it on top or on the side or 00:47:35
rear or front. 00:47:41
It seems as though if you cover with one hand the original and you look at the addition, it should, it should speak to what's 00:47:48
under your palm. And to me, this just misses that mark. And I, you know, I don't know, do you? 00:47:57
Reduce the amount of the. 00:48:06
Of the deck in order to make you know make more of an impact where you carry a roof line up and. 00:48:10
Raise the actual yes so that you don't see. It's not that I care to see the the rooftop deck where they're railing. It's just that 00:48:26
it looks like an afterthought, like somebody took a modular unit and stuck it on the side of a. 00:48:34
The building. 00:48:43
And I don't understand the the front door and you know, this triangle, is this a little piece of glass that's supposed to mirror 00:48:46
something else? 00:48:53
The back stairs. 00:49:04
Seem very. 00:49:09
Little you know, very narrow. They're the minimum. 00:49:12
Width I think allowed, but it would be nicer. 00:49:18
I don't know, I just feel like the design missed the mark. I. 00:49:24
I. 00:49:32
I mean, I'm happy with the where this stairs are and I, you know, nobody, nobody that I have met in Pacific Grove, unless they 00:49:39
have one, is in favor of a rooftop deck. 00:49:46
Umm. 00:49:53
I do believe that that that like an opaque glass. I mean even if the railing is higher than you know, 42 which I believe is code. 00:49:58
I I. 00:50:10
Would possibly mitigate some of their concerns about. 00:50:14
Privacy. 00:50:21
But it's the. 00:50:24
It's this. What is this facade? What is this elevation? Its proposed elevation to? It's that. 00:50:27
It's that elevation, that is. 00:50:38
Not sitting well with me. 00:50:52
Yeah, that's a challenge because if you just if you. 00:50:56
Truncate that deck and if you bring the stairs closer to the upper. 00:50:59
Level 2 That could look awkward, like there's just a stairwell. 00:51:04
Protruding from the. 00:51:09
Upper level, but even if the stairs remain where they are, but this is it has a a. 00:51:12
Some sort of a facade or you know, so you don't see the railing or this is the front door area. I mean, I believe in plan view is 00:51:24
just just straight. So you're not going to have an awning, you're not going to have dormer, you're just going to have this. 00:51:34
Straight. 00:51:49
Blocky. 00:51:52
Modular is what it looks like to me. 00:52:00
And again, I'm thrilled with the fact that they moved the stairs. I can really appreciate that. 00:52:04
It's just that elevation to that is. 00:52:12
Just not. 00:52:17
Not sitting well with me. 00:52:18
On Wednesday goes through. 00:52:22
If I may, I have to completely agree with you. I think proposed elevation two is a complete disservice, frankly as a drawing, 00:52:27
because I don't think it actually depicts well the dimension of what we're looking at. I think the door is depicted in a very an 00:52:35
artful way on this elevation. You have to really study the. 00:52:43
The schematic the page above if you can scroll up if you don't mind. 00:52:52
To really understand the dimension of what's going on there and that you know, the door is actually set back. 00:52:57
You know quite a bit from the. 00:53:05
The wall with the two windows in it and and proposed proposed elevation two is actually very confusing to me and so I actually do 00:53:09
you know. 00:53:14
Think about this plan, what they're trying to implement a little bit more to get through that kind of boxy modular impression that 00:53:20
proposed elevation two gives a. 00:53:26
I would hope that they could do a little bit with the door as it's set back from those two windows. 00:53:32
But. 00:53:39
I don't quite think the project as constructed will look from the street like what proposed elevation to depends. 00:53:41
By virtue of the. 00:53:53
The way that the door is actually set back from that new wall with the two windows facing the street. 00:53:55
And I appreciate that because nothing looks like a 2D. 00:54:03
Nothing looks 2 dimensional. 00:54:09
Accept architectural drawings? Well, they would have really benefited from a 3D drawing here for sure. 00:54:11
With that said, I still think it could have, you know, a little more. 00:54:22
Interest I I don't know. 00:54:34
I don't know what that is. I'm not an architect, I just. 00:54:39
Yeah. 00:54:48
Again, I always feel like. 00:54:51
The time to do it is when it's in front of you and so I feel like. 00:54:56
I would hate to see a missed opportunity here when we could. 00:55:02
Recommend something I don't know. 00:55:09
I just want to say that I really appreciate the dialogue and thoughts from fellow members. I don't disagree and. 00:55:15
Appreciate the robust discussion. 00:55:26
For me still. 00:55:29
The guideline seven really to me is problematic. 00:55:32
And conclusively so. 00:55:39
I understand and also appreciate the fact that this is a high density neighborhood and certainly appreciate that we have lots of 00:55:41
homes here in Pacific Grove that are very close together also. 00:55:48
Appreciate the. 00:55:55
Argument from the applicant in the sense that. 00:55:58
And mentioned by Mr. Huff in terms of first and right for some time that the wine dorse were purchased this home very close to the 00:56:01
property line and I. 00:56:07
Well, that that's that's something to consider. 00:56:14
Part of. 00:56:19
Part of what makes that a difficult pill for me to swallow is just the circumstance in this case of the fact that there is just. 00:56:20
So much room to work with here. This is a large lot and if it. 00:56:31
It would, I think I might reach a different conclusion if this was a property and a lot that you didn't really have much to work 00:56:38
with and you know, if you wanted this, this amount of floor space. 00:56:45
You needed to build right on the property line, but that really isn't the case here and so I do for me. 00:56:54
I can get past guidelines 7. In this instance that's. 00:57:03
I'll leave it at that. 00:57:08
Yeah, it does look a little disproportionate when we're looking top down. But again with the and there's a lot of open space in 00:57:12
this unit closer to this street. 00:57:17
So I am trying just to evaluate it just as the back unit as one. 00:57:23
Because. 00:57:29
I think that's only fair. I suppose being a duplex we couldn't ask them. I don't think it would be fair to encroach. 00:57:31
Umm. 00:57:39
Unit 1. 00:57:43
But anyway. 00:57:46
As I kind of mentioned, I think last meeting I'm I'm certainly I'm reluctant to. 00:57:48
To provide my own thoughts in terms of how it should be designed that that's not. I'm not qualified to do that. 00:57:54
But that being said, I do think there is a way where you do not encroach on you. You don't have to move the. 00:58:03
East elevation wall further east in order to. 00:58:12
Main in order to keep the growth floor area, but also move it away from the West elevation, meaning you can move that you can move 00:58:19
this this wall in and then. 00:58:25
Reconfigure it, perhaps put some more over here anyway. 00:58:33
Eating like more of an L? Yes, and I thought the same thing. I think there's there are ways to do it. I defer to the architect. 00:58:39
To devise it. Totally agree and I think I am not opposed. 00:58:49
To the rooftop deck. 00:58:55
Again, it's. 00:58:59
No neighbor likes them, you know. 00:59:02