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 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
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 | |