No Bookmarks Exist.
Record. | 00:00:05 | |
Yep. | 00:00:16 | |
Why not? | 00:00:18 | |
All right. I'd like to call to order the September 27th, 2023 meeting. | 00:00:20 | |
Of the Historic Resources Committee to order. | 00:00:26 | |
And maybe start please with a. | 00:00:30 | |
Roll call vote. | 00:00:32 | |
Chair will call. | 00:00:35 | |
Charenton. | 00:00:38 | |
Present. | 00:00:39 | |
Remember Beckett? | 00:00:41 | |
Present. | 00:00:42 | |
Remember Grannis? | 00:00:43 | |
Present. | 00:00:44 | |
Remember, please. | 00:00:45 | |
President. | 00:00:46 | |
Over steers. | 00:00:47 | |
Absent. | 00:00:49 | |
Amber greening. | 00:00:50 | |
Yeah. | 00:00:51 | |
We have 5. | 00:00:53 | |
Out of six Members present with one absence, we do have. | 00:00:55 | |
A quorum. | 00:00:59 | |
And I hope, Mr. Sears. | 00:01:00 | |
Comes. | 00:01:02 | |
All right. We'll move to the approval of the agenda. | 00:01:04 | |
Do I have a? | 00:01:08 | |
Motion to Approve from. | 00:01:09 | |
My committee approved the agenda. Thank you second. | 00:01:12 | |
Thank you. | 00:01:16 | |
And I reviewed the Minutes. | 00:01:17 | |
And now we need a roll call. | 00:01:21 | |
Vote. | 00:01:23 | |
Sorry, could you repeat who who voted for the? | 00:01:25 | |
This. | 00:01:29 | |
I moved, OK. | 00:01:31 | |
Member Grannis. | 00:01:40 | |
Yes. | 00:01:43 | |
Member, please. | 00:01:45 | |
Yes. | 00:01:46 | |
Member Greening Member Bickett. | 00:01:47 | |
Charenton. | 00:01:51 | |
Yes. | 00:01:52 | |
With five. | 00:01:54 | |
Eyes and. | 00:01:55 | |
One absent. | 00:01:57 | |
The motion to approve the agenda passes. | 00:01:58 | |
Thank you. | 00:02:01 | |
Do we have any committee announcements? | 00:02:02 | |
None. Do we have any staff announcements. | 00:02:07 | |
We do not. | 00:02:11 | |
We have none, all right. | 00:02:12 | |
And our Council liaison is not present. | 00:02:14 | |
So with that I'm going to. | 00:02:18 | |
Open to general public comments and just a reminder that. | 00:02:20 | |
Public comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of this Committee. | 00:02:25 | |
But. | 00:02:31 | |
Can only deal with items that are not on the regular agenda. So with that I'll open the public comment and we'll start with. | 00:02:32 | |
Anybody in the present audience? | 00:02:39 | |
Thank you. | 00:02:47 | |
Good afternoon, council women. Nice to see you all today. My name is. Is this you think my voice is on? Yes. OK. | 00:02:50 | |
My name is Vincent Tumminello. I live on 17th St. I've been here for 45 years. | 00:02:58 | |
Local resident and I'm here with a dire warning for you. | 00:03:03 | |
Your committees work in the future is under threat. | 00:03:07 | |
The state of California, you may be aware. | 00:03:12 | |
The the legislature there. | 00:03:15 | |
Which is heavily 1 sided has voted for a housing mandate. | 00:03:17 | |
SB-9. | 00:03:24 | |
Which insists that Pacific Grove address its lack. | 00:03:27 | |
Of necessary housing. | 00:03:31 | |
So you may be aware or not, Pacific Grove is required to build 11150 new units or. | 00:03:33 | |
Garage conversions into apartments. | 00:03:40 | |
Second story. Apartments. Apartment buildings. | 00:03:43 | |
And if the city doesn't comply with its prepare prepared housing element? | 00:03:46 | |
To show the state where we're going to build these 11150 units. | 00:03:53 | |
Then. | 00:03:58 | |
We're not qualified to proceed and the state will step in and take over. | 00:03:59 | |
Now when the state does that, they're gonna override all the. | 00:04:05 | |
Zoning laws. | 00:04:08 | |
Setbacks, height requirements and including historic. | 00:04:09 | |
Properties. | 00:04:15 | |
Someone with a historic property that you may feel is valuable and she'll be maintained. | 00:04:16 | |
Should be restored. Should not be allowed to be torn down or added on in an inappropriate way. All of that will be overridden by | 00:04:21 | |
the state, whose only concern is the number of new units, not how they look. | 00:04:28 | |
Not their historic value and not any other local city ordinances. | 00:04:35 | |
Now, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you? It does to me. | 00:04:39 | |
And I felt that I would come here and speak to you because I know you do valuable work. | 00:04:43 | |
I used to be a good friend and neighbour and worked with Francis. Great. Some of you may remember her. | 00:04:47 | |
She was a person of value to the community who was very historic preservation. | 00:04:52 | |
Oriented. | 00:04:57 | |
Also with Rebecca Riddell, she was another local woman who was concerned about the historic. | 00:04:58 | |
Atmosphere and architecture and so forth of the city. So I wanna caution you, I wanna recommend the only the only remedy we may | 00:05:04 | |
have is two groups. | 00:05:09 | |
And you may want to write these down. One is called. | 00:05:14 | |
Our neighborhood voices. Ohh you are neighborhood voices. | 00:05:17 | |
They have a website. | 00:05:21 | |
And the other is called sensible zoning. | 00:05:23 | |
So you should visit those two websites and see what these groups are doing. | 00:05:26 | |
And Sensible Zoning is a group of four charter cities that are suing the state to stop this ridiculous mandate. | 00:05:30 | |
And. | 00:05:38 | |
The four cities are all charter cities. Pacific Grove is a charter city, but they haven't joined in. | 00:05:39 | |
Maybe you should excrete after you visit these websites. | 00:05:45 | |
Maybe you should entreat our City Council and mayor. | 00:05:48 | |
And city staff for us to take part in that, because I'm gonna be here another 40 years and some of you will also. | 00:05:51 | |
And some people just come and go and they could care less. | 00:05:58 | |
I'm concerned please. | 00:06:01 | |
Take a look at that. Thank you very much. | 00:06:03 | |
Umm. | 00:06:18 | |
We do. | 00:06:24 | |
I'm gonna allow Miss Gianni. | 00:06:27 | |
To talk. | 00:06:30 | |
Thank you. | 00:06:33 | |
I hope you've all had an opportunity to look at the 400 page draft housing element for the General Plan, which was posted on the | 00:06:34 | |
city's website a week ago and sets out where PG will locate new housing, as you just heard to meet the states mandate of. | 00:06:42 | |
I thought it was 11125 units over the next eight years. It provides for rezoning the NOAA property at 1352 Lighthouse Ave. | 00:06:51 | |
From open space to R4, the highest density density residential zoning in PG, allowing buildings to cover 50% of the property with | 00:07:01 | |
30 feet high. | 00:07:07 | |
30 feet high to create 84 units of affordable housing with the potential for an additional 36 units of above moderate income | 00:07:13 | |
housing. The draft housing document is full of confusing, inaccurate, and contradictory information, and it does not cite the | 00:07:22 | |
Municipal Code Rezoning Restriction #2342 O3 O that requires voter approval for rezoning and open space property. | 00:07:31 | |
The document also fails to mention that the property is in the coastal zone and any zoning change would require application for a | 00:07:41 | |
local Coastal program amendment, which the Coastal Commission would have to review and approve in order for the rezoning to be | 00:07:47 | |
carried out, since Coastal Commission staff has strongly advised the government before they sold the property at auction, that | 00:07:53 | |
this property is highly sensitive. | 00:07:59 | |
Culturally, for its archaeological resources and environmentally as sand dune habitat and it's part of a highly scenic area, | 00:08:05 | |
rezoning would not likely receive Coastal Commission approval, the document also states. | 00:08:12 | |
At the housing document that the Noah building was constructed in 1985. | 00:08:19 | |
Instead of 1952 and that it is not a historic resource. | 00:08:24 | |
Apparently no one told the consultants about the building's history, which members of the community have continued to research | 00:08:29 | |
since HRC voted unanimously to to initiate adding it to the HRI. | 00:08:35 | |
In fact, the RFP approved to be prepared for a historical consultant should be issued very shortly after a few months delay. I | 00:08:42 | |
hope you will all consider submitting personal comments on the housing element. | 00:08:48 | |
To the Housing Department and the Planning Commission, who will be reviewing the housing plan next week on October 5th and | 00:08:55 | |
continuing their review on October 12th. And the City Council will be reviewing it on October October 18th. | 00:09:02 | |
I have written to them. | 00:09:10 | |
Asking. | 00:09:13 | |
I have written to a Housing and and Planning Commission asking that the inappropriate plan to rezone the former Noah property for | 00:09:14 | |
residential development. | 00:09:19 | |
Be removed from the housing element? | 00:09:24 | |
And asking at. | 00:09:26 | |
That the former Noah property be removed from the proposed residential site inventory and I hope you. | 00:09:28 | |
Would choose to do the same. Thank you. | 00:09:35 | |
And then I have Miss Dahmer. | 00:09:42 | |
Thank you. | 00:09:47 | |
I love to follow Lisa because I don't really have to say much. All I have to do is absolutely agree with what she said and also | 00:09:48 | |
say that it's very interesting in this housing element that with our survey and everything else on on. | 00:09:57 | |
The, the sites and what the citizens wanted and they said absolutely. | 00:10:07 | |
All of us said don't mess with our open space. | 00:10:12 | |
And then when that was barred in Driscoll and then they got fired and then Rincon and all of a sudden it shows up of rezoning the | 00:10:16 | |
Noah. | 00:10:20 | |
Building, Well, yes, as Lisa said, the RFP that the. | 00:10:25 | |
City Council subcommittee formulated is coming out very soon to be issued and we will get another opinion on that. | 00:10:30 | |
The other thing I wanted to address is. | 00:10:41 | |
At. | 00:10:44 | |
236 it might. | 00:10:45 | |
E-mail box I received. | 00:10:48 | |
The errata to this meeting at 3:00. | 00:10:51 | |
Which is about a project that's being heard today. | 00:10:55 | |
And I think that's cutting it. | 00:10:59 | |
Pretty short. | 00:11:01 | |
256 for a 336 for a 3:00 meeting. I think that it would be. | 00:11:04 | |
Better to have them way sooner. | 00:11:11 | |
If you expect. | 00:11:14 | |
A proper review. | 00:11:16 | |
Thank you very much. | 00:11:18 | |
I see no other hands raised. | 00:11:28 | |
On the consent agenda. | 00:12:36 | |
Item B. | 00:12:38 | |
I'm not asking to pull anything, I'm just saying there is no address. | 00:12:40 | |
Notice that too should be. | 00:12:45 | |
24317 Mile Drive. | 00:12:48 | |
Just a correction. | 00:12:50 | |
Thanks. | 00:12:54 | |
Approve the consent agenda. | 00:13:11 | |
I'll second it, yes. | 00:13:14 | |
Remember bigot? | 00:13:21 | |
Yes. | 00:13:24 | |
Remember steers? | 00:13:25 | |
Aye. | 00:13:27 | |
Number greening. | 00:13:28 | |
Number please. | 00:13:30 | |
Number Grannis. | 00:13:32 | |
Chair Anton. | 00:13:34 | |
Six eyes, 0 nays. | 00:13:35 | |
The motion passes. | 00:13:38 | |
I will be giving this staff report and good afternoon committee members. | 00:13:58 | |
Or. | 00:14:05 | |
The subject property is approximately 3600 square feet and developed with an existing nonconforming 900 square foot one story | 00:14:10 | |
single family dwelling and a 900 square foot non habitable basement. | 00:14:16 | |
Existing residence is nonconforming in regard to rear and South side setbacks. The property is located within the cities area of | 00:14:22 | |
special biological significance. It is not located in the coastal zone or in an archaeologically sensitive area. Subject property | 00:14:28 | |
is listed on the HR I. The phase two historic assessment prepared for the site concluded that the proposed work on the subject | 00:14:33 | |
property is consistent. | 00:14:39 | |
For sure. | 00:14:45 | |
Is consistent with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation with minimal loss of historic materials, so that the remaining | 00:14:48 | |
character defining features of the resource. | 00:14:52 | |
Will not be obscured, damaged or destroyed. The proposed work would not result in significant change to the listed historic | 00:14:57 | |
building. | 00:15:00 | |
The proposed project includes remodeling and existing nonconforming 900 square foot, one story single family residence and the | 00:15:05 | |
construction. | 00:15:09 | |
Of a two-story addition adjacent to the existing residence. | 00:15:13 | |
The two-story addition includes a 165 square foot first floor. | 00:15:17 | |
821 square foot second story with a rooftop deck and a 291 square foot attached garage. | 00:15:22 | |
The applicant also proposes to construct a 459 square foot first floor attached AU and per state law, the AU is ministerially | 00:15:29 | |
approved because it meets the state law and Pacific Grove AU ordinance. | 00:15:35 | |
And development standards. | 00:15:41 | |
The resulting structure will include 2636 square feet spread across two stories and an attached garage. The additions without the | 00:15:43 | |
AD would result in. | 00:15:48 | |
2177 square feet spread across two stories. | 00:15:53 | |
And an attached garage. | 00:15:57 | |
The Subject property is located on the east side of 8th St. between Central Ave. and Lighthouse Ave. and the R3 PGR zone. | 00:15:59 | |
The property is located in a residential neighborhood and is surrounded by one and two-story houses. The houses immediately | 00:16:06 | |
surrounding the subject property are constructed in a variety of materials and styles. | 00:16:11 | |
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Committee approve the project to the findings, Conditions of Approval and Section | 00:16:17 | |
15301, Class One and Section 15331, Class 31 Categorical exemptions. | 00:16:24 | |
For existing facilities and historic restoration rehabilitation. | 00:16:31 | |
Respectively. If you have any questions, I'll do my best. | 00:16:35 | |
Thank you. | 00:16:40 | |
Hold on, there we go. | 00:16:46 | |
And what? | 00:16:49 | |
With the. | 00:16:50 | |
Applicant or the. | 00:16:51 | |
Architect like to speak, please. | 00:16:53 | |
Good afternoon, committee members and chair Anton. My name is Paul Simpson with JCB Architects. | 00:17:03 | |
Umm. | 00:17:09 | |
I would like to highlight a few of the points and walk you through the project. | 00:17:11 | |
The. | 00:17:15 | |
For the historic report, the original houses was built in 1896 and the current owners moved in in 1996. | 00:17:16 | |
And I've owned it since 1998. | 00:17:26 | |
They've taken pride in care, in maintaining and restoring and updating parts of the existing house. | 00:17:30 | |
The existing house, as stated, was only 900 square feet. | 00:17:35 | |
Both of the owners. | 00:17:39 | |
Work from home and so it is very cramped. | 00:17:41 | |
Cramped space with not a lot of space to. | 00:17:44 | |
Have. | 00:17:48 | |
To entertain a family and friends without being in their workspace. | 00:17:50 | |
When they purchased the vacant lot next door. | 00:17:55 | |
That afforded them the space and ability to add on and be able to. | 00:17:59 | |
Basically have have the space that they. | 00:18:06 | |
They want to be able to live comfortably there. | 00:18:09 | |
When starting the project, we consulted with the city planners and also with Kent Seavey, the architectural historian. | 00:18:12 | |
To make sure we were on the right path for meeting zoning requirements. | 00:18:19 | |
Considering the design guidelines and also following the guidelines from the Secretary of Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic | 00:18:24 | |
Structures. | 00:18:28 | |
We're not asking for any exceptions. We're meeting all the zoning requirements. | 00:18:34 | |
We have kept the historic house houses, character characteristics and features. | 00:18:40 | |
And minimizing any changes to them, particularly on the street frontage. | 00:18:45 | |
The proposed design. | 00:18:49 | |
A solution is a split level approach, taking advantage of the natural grade to lower the 2nd. | 00:18:51 | |
Story of the two-story edition. | 00:18:59 | |
Thereby not overwhelming the existing historic structure. | 00:19:01 | |
By doing this the the roof of the. | 00:19:06 | |
Two-story addition. | 00:19:08 | |
Does not exceed the height of the historic house as it sits on the lot. | 00:19:10 | |
Furthermore. | 00:19:15 | |
The plans show a glass railing at the roof deck. | 00:19:17 | |
Thereby also minimizing the visual effect of the height of the roof as it compares to the existing historic house. | 00:19:20 | |
The the addition is set back from the face of the original house. | 00:19:30 | |
And the lower elements, the more forward elements are kept lower and the taller elements are kept further back. | 00:19:36 | |
From the from the street. | 00:19:45 | |
Facade. | 00:19:47 | |
The main entry. | 00:19:48 | |
Is located at the ground level at the addition. | 00:19:52 | |
And in order to draw one's eyes more towards the addition to the main entry. | 00:19:55 | |
The existing. | 00:20:01 | |
Porch steps. | 00:20:03 | |
Are to be reoriented to the side. They're currently in rather poor condition as it as they stand. | 00:20:05 | |
There will be reoriented, reoriented towards the side yard. | 00:20:13 | |
Thereby making that porch a little more private. | 00:20:17 | |
And enlarging it for their enjoyment and use. | 00:20:20 | |
But but keeping it consistent with the vernacular of of the area in the house. | 00:20:25 | |
The the connecting element between the historic home and the proposed addition is a flat roofed area and the historian. | 00:20:32 | |
Called referred to it as a hyphen. | 00:20:40 | |
Umm. | 00:20:43 | |
Where the. | 00:20:45 | |
Historic house has a pitched roof and the addition has a pitched roof. This hyphen separates them. | 00:20:46 | |
And further distinguishes the existing from the proposed. | 00:20:51 | |
At this hyphen. | 00:20:56 | |
The existing. | 00:20:58 | |
Historic exterior wall will remain. | 00:20:59 | |
And a new structural wall will be built. | 00:21:02 | |
Directly adjacent to the to the existing wall. | 00:21:06 | |
For the addition. | 00:21:10 | |
Thereby maintaining the historic wall so as. | 00:21:11 | |
Per the Secretary of Standards recommends, what recommendation is that if at some time in the future the addition were to be | 00:21:15 | |
removed? | 00:21:19 | |
The historic integrity of that wall would still remain. | 00:21:23 | |
The hyphen contains the main stairway. | 00:21:30 | |
And the connecting elements between the historic house and the main living space in the kitchen and the new and the new upper | 00:21:33 | |
level. | 00:21:37 | |
The ground level contains the attached garage and the proposed AU. | 00:21:41 | |
Meeting the sitting standards for such a unit. | 00:21:46 | |
The plan also provides for the additional uncovered parking in the driveway space. That's provided the current house does not have | 00:21:49 | |
a garage. | 00:21:53 | |
Or proper parking. | 00:21:58 | |
And looking at the forms and materials of the exterior, we are proposing board and bat for the siding of the addition. | 00:22:01 | |
That is, this distinguishes the addition from the historic structure, thereby meeting another of the Secretary of Sanders's | 00:22:07 | |
guidelines. | 00:22:11 | |
Secretary of Interior's guidelines. | 00:22:15 | |
Although distinctly different, the board and bat siding is in keeping with the. | 00:22:18 | |
With the with the period and other examples within Pacific Grove. | 00:22:22 | |
The roof deck is minimized by. | 00:22:27 | |
Setting it back from the street. | 00:22:30 | |
And from the edge of the building. | 00:22:32 | |
We used a parapet. | 00:22:34 | |
Roof element. | 00:22:35 | |
To tie the addition to the historic structure and keep the overall height down. | 00:22:37 | |
The plans for the glass rail on the parapet. | 00:22:42 | |
To meet the code required safety standards. | 00:22:44 | |
The owners have discussed their project with the immediate neighbors. The neighbor to the rear of this property had had a concern | 00:22:47 | |
about the the roof. | 00:22:53 | |
Deck railing. | 00:22:58 | |
And obstructing a view from. | 00:23:00 | |
From a bedroom window, although views are not protected. | 00:23:03 | |
The owners are considering an alternative to the glass guardrail, such as cable rail. | 00:23:06 | |
That may allow for more transparency through the railing for the neighbors view and enjoyment as a as a courtesy. | 00:23:13 | |
The neighbor to the north tried to send an e-mail to the planning department, but unfortunately it didn't go through. I'll read | 00:23:21 | |
the e-mail that we received a copy of. | 00:23:25 | |
It is from. | 00:23:30 | |
Suzanne's sales, sales, sales, sales. | 00:23:32 | |
And, she writes, Sandy and Donna have been great neighbors since 1996. | 00:23:38 | |
The plans seem to be well thought out with consideration of neighbors. I approve of the proposed plans and that's the neighbor to | 00:23:42 | |
the north. | 00:23:47 | |
In conclusion, we believe the proposed project not only meets the zoning requirements and design guidelines of the city, there's | 00:23:53 | |
also sensitive to preserving the historic house. | 00:23:58 | |
Distinguishing the old from the new by using materials and design elements that are common and consistent with the neighborhood. | 00:24:03 | |
Neighborhood, character, vernacular, and scale. I'd like to reserve any remaining time to address questions or comments at the | 00:24:10 | |
end. | 00:24:13 | |
Thank you. | 00:24:18 | |
Thank you, Paul. | 00:24:19 | |
Umm. | 00:24:20 | |
So now I will. | 00:24:22 | |
Opened the public comment. | 00:24:24 | |
Do we have any? | 00:24:27 | |
Present. | 00:24:28 | |
I'm Donna Phillips. | 00:24:40 | |
And I'm one of the owners at Ruth Hooper's house. | 00:24:41 | |
143 8th St. | 00:24:44 | |
When I moved to California in 87, it took a very long time to find a house, so I don't take housing lightly at all. I had to live | 00:24:47 | |
in campgrounds for a long time. | 00:24:51 | |
And now when I finally found a house. | 00:24:56 | |
I mean they. | 00:24:58 | |
I was very grateful to have it and I always love the look of this area when I moved to Pacific Grove. | 00:24:59 | |
It was likely as hard to find a place to rent and when we found this house. | 00:25:04 | |
It spoke to me immediately and I fell in love with it. | 00:25:08 | |
So I've been carefully taking care of this House since we moved in. | 00:25:11 | |
As renters and we just kept begging. | 00:25:16 | |
The owner at the time. | 00:25:19 | |
If there's any way we could buy it to please let us buy it and we would take good care of it for him because he loved it equally | 00:25:21 | |
as well. | 00:25:23 | |
So we've done improvements to it as we can, but we've always kept historic look and. | 00:25:26 | |
The boards on the inside, the fact that it's all single walled wood construction that actually appeals to us so. | 00:25:31 | |
We're very grateful to have worked with Jeannie and Paul on keeping. | 00:25:37 | |
The look of the area, because Pacific Grove is where I will be the rest of my life, is where is the things to me. | 00:25:41 | |
To walk these neighborhoods and see these homes. | 00:25:47 | |
And I really do feel that the addition will be done in a way that will. | 00:25:50 | |
You know, elevate Ruth's house. | 00:25:54 | |
And hopefully. | 00:25:57 | |
You know, keep it for a long time to come. | 00:25:59 | |
Keep it strong. | 00:26:01 | |
Thank you. | 00:26:04 | |
There are other public comment. | 00:26:05 | |
Yes, OK Vince Tuminello, Pacific Grove resident. | 00:26:11 | |
Is this the direction we're going with historic properties? | 00:26:15 | |
I mean the difference between what these people originally purchased. | 00:26:19 | |
I would consider that historic. They knew what they were buying. They knew that it was. | 00:26:24 | |
1896, I believe it was said. | 00:26:28 | |
OK. And this is your responsibility. How many properties in Pacific Grove are we gonna allow these types of proposals? | 00:26:31 | |
To be approved. | 00:26:39 | |
Does that final, I wanna call it a Mcmansion. | 00:26:40 | |
Is that gonna give a historic look? Is that preserving our history? | 00:26:44 | |
You know, it's not like you're taking anything away from the present owners. | 00:26:49 | |
They knew what they were buying A small little 900 square foot. | 00:26:53 | |
Historic home. | 00:26:56 | |
On down by the ocean and the 100 block. | 00:26:58 | |
And I don't see. I mean, do you see? I'm not gonna ask you to answer me. | 00:27:02 | |
But I'm going to ask rhetorically. | 00:27:05 | |
To people see that that proposal is gonna preserve the history of a historic home. | 00:27:07 | |
Changing the front and whatever the condition is is OK, all great. | 00:27:12 | |
I've seen this type of stuff go on for many, many years. Plus there's going to be an Adu. More people, more cars to that | 00:27:16 | |
neighborhood. | 00:27:20 | |
And this is pretty much a very soft sell of what the state is proposing. Let's fill all the lots as much as we can. Let's make it | 00:27:24 | |
as crowded as we can. And where's the historicity? | 00:27:30 | |
In this modification, I mean the architect did a nice job. | 00:27:37 | |
I think this is all good for the real estate people, for the architects. | 00:27:41 | |
For the people who have an older home that they got at a good price, maybe let's call it a low price and now times have changed | 00:27:44 | |
and and restrictions have changed and let's go ahead and build a Mcmansion. | 00:27:50 | |
And I'm just curious, I'm gonna, I'm interested to see what your relevancy and what your criteria is gonna be in either approving | 00:27:56 | |
or disapproving of this. | 00:28:01 | |
So I don't want to see the whole town. | 00:28:05 | |
Turned into one big jam property and into the next. And the streets all full of parked cars. | 00:28:08 | |
And so on and so forth. OK, Thank you very much. | 00:28:15 | |
Thank you. | 00:28:18 | |
You may. | 00:28:25 | |
Funny. | 00:28:32 | |
My name is Scott Johnson. I live at 147 8th St. | 00:28:33 | |
My objection? | 00:28:39 | |
The current. | 00:28:41 | |
Opposed project may not be relevant here. Can you speak into the mic please? My objection. | 00:28:42 | |
To the current project may not be relevant here because it is not based upon the historicity. | 00:28:48 | |
But rather the blockage of my ocean view. | 00:28:54 | |
And so if it is not relevant here, please tell me when and where the proper form would be to express my objections. | 00:28:57 | |
Position to answer questions that would be a question for city staff would be my recommendation for that. We're under the purview | 00:29:09 | |
just to address the property and. | 00:29:13 | |
To base it on its merits or not in terms of following the rules of the HRC. | 00:29:18 | |
I think that's an answer, but not quite the one I was looking for. | 00:29:24 | |
Sorry, this is. I'm sorry, Apologize. You have 3 minutes. You can express your opinion and I already have, and we will listen to | 00:29:28 | |
your opinion. Now will there be an architectural review on this? That's what you're in. That's what we're doing. | 00:29:35 | |
Then my objection is relevant. | 00:29:43 | |
Because the architecture as designed obscures my near ocean view. | 00:29:46 | |
Are you finished? | 00:30:06 | |
Thank you. | 00:30:09 | |
Is there any other public comment? | 00:30:12 | |
Good afternoon. | 00:30:23 | |
I'm Sandy Shore and I am one of the owners of 143 8th St. | 00:30:24 | |
And umm. | 00:30:29 | |
My family moved here in 1969. | 00:30:32 | |
And I think the most, the longest I ever stayed at any residence in this community was about three years. | 00:30:35 | |
Until I purchased this house. | 00:30:43 | |
In 1998, two years after renting it. | 00:30:46 | |
And I do. If I sound emotional, I am. | 00:30:51 | |
We love this house. | 00:30:54 | |
And I have read every John Steinbeck book from cover to back, back, back to cover. | 00:30:56 | |
Keeping the integrity of the history of this community is everything to me. | 00:31:03 | |
I. | 00:31:09 | |
I mean, the Batten Board of itself was so Cannery Row, you know? | 00:31:11 | |
Having a home that was built in 1896. | 00:31:16 | |
We can feel it. We can feel the spirit of the house. We can. The wood speaks to us. | 00:31:21 | |
We love our community. We love being at the end of Rickets Row. | 00:31:27 | |
In honor of Doctor Ricketts, of course. | 00:31:32 | |
So we would never compromise the history of this community. | 00:31:36 | |
The company we've built. | 00:31:43 | |
Is based out of Monterey Bay. | 00:31:45 | |
We broadcast globally. | 00:31:47 | |
We have a jazz radio station with millions of listeners around the world. | 00:31:50 | |
Every hour on the hour we say live. | 00:31:55 | |
From the Monterey Bay. | 00:31:57 | |
And I'm sorry for being emotional. | 00:32:02 | |
We waited three years to have this hearing. | 00:32:04 | |
Some. | 00:32:07 | |
That's when we first met with Jeannie. | 00:32:09 | |
And Paul. | 00:32:11 | |
And we painstakingly went over this. | 00:32:12 | |
You know, we we were so careful. We're so careful about how not to block views. | 00:32:16 | |
Mr. Johnson has one of the most beautiful views you can imagine. He lives in a duplex he rents behind us. | 00:32:21 | |
We like him. He's our neighbor. | 00:32:27 | |
You can see. | 00:32:29 | |
Around the Bay. It's wonderful our house will not block his view. | 00:32:30 | |
And I think you know, it's not higher than the original house. | 00:32:35 | |
Which we did on purpose. | 00:32:38 | |
Umm. | 00:32:40 | |
We would. | 00:32:41 | |
I recognize an accent in the gentleman's voice that was here I was. I'm a fourth generation Californian. | 00:32:43 | |
I again love this state and I love this community. | 00:32:49 | |
We will not compromise the history. | 00:32:52 | |
And we look forward to building and adding on to this lovely little cottage. | 00:32:55 | |
And making it something spectacular so we can have my family come and visit. | 00:33:00 | |
My sister has 13 grandchildren and children. | 00:33:04 | |
And. | 00:33:07 | |
27 years they've not been able to stay in our house, so we look forward to the holidays now. | 00:33:08 | |
Once we built. And I thank you for listening. | 00:33:13 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:16 | |
You have any virtual public comment? | 00:33:20 | |
Yes, we do. | 00:33:23 | |
Going to allow Miss Dahmer to speak. | 00:33:27 | |
Thank you. | 00:33:33 | |
I appreciate the really emotional appeal. | 00:33:36 | |
And and the care that went into this. | 00:33:40 | |
I do have trouble with the reorientation of the front porch the size. | 00:33:44 | |
And the fact that. | 00:33:50 | |
That it's one that starts off with. Oh well, if we remove all these things in, the integrity is still there. | 00:33:54 | |
Well, a few years down the line is when the next historical review is going to be. | 00:34:03 | |
Deleting these from the historic list, so I don't know. | 00:34:09 | |
Please use your discretion. Thank you very much. | 00:34:15 | |
Thank you. | 00:34:20 | |
Can we get the timer going please? And then I have Miss Gianni. | 00:34:21 | |
Thank you. | 00:34:29 | |
I'm I'm also torn about this. | 00:34:32 | |
I mean the concept. | 00:34:36 | |
You know of keeping the original. | 00:34:38 | |
Sounds great. | 00:34:42 | |
The drawings on paper look. | 00:34:44 | |
Huge. | 00:34:47 | |
Umm. | 00:34:48 | |
And. | 00:34:49 | |
And. | 00:34:50 | |
So it's just. | 00:34:51 | |
Very. | 00:34:52 | |
Difficult. | 00:34:55 | |
Especially considering that the owners. | 00:34:56 | |
Sounds like. | 00:34:59 | |
Really, really nice people who love this. | 00:35:01 | |
Amazing place that we all live. | 00:35:03 | |
Umm. | 00:35:06 | |
And but yeah, it is supposed to be objective standards and. | 00:35:07 | |
So I. | 00:35:11 | |
I trust. | 00:35:13 | |
You can. You can make a good decision here. Thank you. | 00:35:14 | |
Thank you. | 00:35:20 | |
I see no other hands raised. | 00:35:27 | |
All right. I'll close public comment, bring it back here to the committee. | 00:35:29 | |
Or comments? | 00:35:34 | |
Who would like to speak? I have a question to ask the owners. | 00:35:38 | |
I'm I'm wondering and and also to make sure that I'm clear on on our understanding if if this were just one lot versus being on | 00:35:43 | |
two lots. | 00:35:47 | |
Would there be any differentiation on the size of the, the renovation that we'd be allowed to look at that is it's something that | 00:35:52 | |
might maybe before probably for the architect to answer? | 00:35:57 | |
Because I do know the second lot was added to this. | 00:36:02 | |
Sure. Yeah, the lots have been legally merged, so it is technically one lot. | 00:36:09 | |
So it is a 60 by 60. | 00:36:15 | |
Lot. | 00:36:17 | |
And based on the. | 00:36:18 | |
So we were going not by. | 00:36:21 | |
Two separate lots, but by the legally merged. | 00:36:23 | |
Lot of 60 by 60 and looking at the working with the planners. | 00:36:26 | |
And the zoning in terms of what's you know. | 00:36:31 | |
What is? What are the parameters allowed in the zoning ordinance? | 00:36:34 | |
You know, on a 60 by 60 lot. | 00:36:38 | |
Now one comment is about the Adu and that is correct that it it it does. | 00:36:41 | |
Incorporating a DU into this, which is. | 00:36:46 | |
Besides the garage majority of the 1st. | 00:36:50 | |
The the lower level. | 00:36:53 | |
Is the Adu so the gentleman that was asking about? | 00:36:55 | |
You know, more cars and so on. Actually, I think the AU helps the situation. | 00:36:59 | |
Thing with the state housing that you know would be adding an additional housing. | 00:37:03 | |
Unit. | 00:37:08 | |
To Pacific Grove, which seems to be one of the mandated things from the state. | 00:37:09 | |
But yes, it was considered as one lot as it legally is right now. | 00:37:13 | |
Does that answer your question? | 00:37:18 | |
Any other questions? One there may be just. | 00:37:20 | |
Don't go away. | 00:37:23 | |
All right, other comments. | 00:37:25 | |
We must have some. | 00:37:28 | |
I have one comment which is in regards to reconfiguring the front door area and I think that that. | 00:37:31 | |
Just sort of ruins the historic integrity of the front of the house. It may not be. | 00:37:40 | |
Really attractive the way it is now, but that's the way it's always been, so I have a problem with reorienting the front porch | 00:37:46 | |
area on the front of the house. | 00:37:50 | |
I also feel the same way about. | 00:38:09 | |
The front of the house and the door, but I'm also just concerned. I I did go and I. | 00:38:12 | |
Stood there and I. | 00:38:16 | |
It just seemed that it's going to be overwhelming. It is a lot of house. | 00:38:18 | |
And you people do take wonderful care of. I was great to see your home because it it's very nice. But I I I just. | 00:38:25 | |
It's just too much, I feel. | 00:38:36 | |
It's just too much and I think it would overwhelm. | 00:38:39 | |
The beautiful little cottage. | 00:38:43 | |
There's a beautiful little cottage. | 00:38:49 | |
And I am very much persuaded by the fact that they've kept most of it intact. I really like that. | 00:38:52 | |
Umm. | 00:38:59 | |
It's sort of like 2 separate houses. | 00:39:01 | |
Next to each other, they don't. | 00:39:04 | |
Visually connect, but we've approved things like that before successfully. | 00:39:07 | |
And I I like it. I'm in favor of it. | 00:39:13 | |
Other comments. | 00:39:19 | |
I. | 00:39:20 | |
I live in an 800 square foot house. | 00:39:21 | |
And I know and I got it approved down to. | 00:39:24 | |
Do some renovations and I was told that the most I could go up would be to have my house be 14160 square feet. | 00:39:28 | |
And I understand that now we're to consider this as two lots. However. | 00:39:35 | |
When the original owners had this house, it was one lot. | 00:39:40 | |
So if we're considering the historic. | 00:39:43 | |
And we're putting the emphasis on the historic property. It was the property that was the 60 by 60 lot which I'm very familiar | 00:39:47 | |
with. So the. | 00:39:51 | |
The fact that it is now 2 lots and the empty lot was bought so that could add to I'm still persuaded to. | 00:39:55 | |
Make this smaller rather than bigger, just to fill the empty space that wasn't there when this house was there. | 00:40:01 | |
I. | 00:40:08 | |
I just. | 00:40:09 | |
That's my concern about keeping things in the same lot size. The postage stamp is the postage stamp. The house is on the postage | 00:40:10 | |
stamp just because you buy another postage stamp and make it OK. | 00:40:16 | |
It's still. It's a little too big for me. And I appreciate all the value that you have. I do. I have the same love for my house. I | 00:40:21 | |
mean, I do. | 00:40:25 | |
And I'm so happy that you're here and you're doing what you're doing. | 00:40:31 | |
It's just to think of it. | 00:40:34 | |
Almost 2 1/2 times as big as the original house when I can only go up to 1400 at an 800 square foot house. | 00:40:36 | |
Just doesn't really seem that that's the size it should be. That's my feeling. | 00:40:42 | |
One other comment that I have about the massing the Secretary of Interior standards does say that the new work. | 00:40:51 | |
That the massing is to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. | 00:40:57 | |
And I feel that this is just. | 00:41:02 | |
Very, very large and doesn't really meet that standard. | 00:41:04 | |
Let us do you have comment? | 00:41:11 | |
No. | 00:41:13 | |
Very difficult because. | 00:41:14 | |
Including an Adu. | 00:41:17 | |
Of course, adds another five 3500 square feet. | 00:41:19 | |
Whereas if you didn't have. | 00:41:25 | |
You know you don't have that AD you. You would have a a much smaller building that wouldn't be a. | 00:41:27 | |
Problem. And I know the AD we we don't count, we don't, but it just makes the building. | 00:41:31 | |
Look more. | 00:41:37 | |
Massive. | 00:41:38 | |
Just having that extra space used as an AD U. | 00:41:39 | |
And I know it's. | 00:41:43 | |
You know, it's what people want and it's what we are mandated to do. | 00:41:44 | |
So I think that's where probably it. | 00:41:49 | |
It looks more overwhelming because of that Adu. | 00:41:52 | |
Umm. | 00:41:56 | |
I think it's been very well. | 00:41:57 | |
Designed. | 00:41:59 | |
And I'm, you know, apart from the the front porch, I think. | 00:42:00 | |
The way you've kept the. | 00:42:04 | |
Properties separate is. | 00:42:05 | |
Is very good. I I think that's a great. | 00:42:07 | |
Great plan. | 00:42:11 | |
I'm. | 00:42:14 | |
Sort of. | 00:42:16 | |
In between. | 00:42:17 | |
You know, and I'm glad that the the second one. | 00:42:18 | |
Building doesn't. | 00:42:22 | |
Isn't higher or above. | 00:42:23 | |
The original building. I think that's important too. | 00:42:25 | |
So. | 00:42:29 | |
I'm not going to say it's. | 00:42:31 | |
Over messed but. | 00:42:32 | |
Perhaps. | 00:42:34 | |
There's just this. | 00:42:35 | |
I can only. | 00:42:37 | |
Listen to what the rest of the committee says. | 00:42:38 | |
Yeah. | 00:42:40 | |
Say something, make comments, certainly go ahead. In terms of the massing, I think that. | 00:42:41 | |
Mr. Steers, kind of. | 00:42:47 | |
Hit it on on the nose in terms of how we were approaching it is. | 00:42:50 | |
Really as almost like 2 buildings and that hyphen which can see the. | 00:42:54 | |
Called that little middle area. | 00:42:58 | |
Is set back. | 00:43:01 | |
At least 12 the the upper wall. I think it's like 12 feet back from the. | 00:43:03 | |
From all the main house. | 00:43:07 | |
And that hyphen was yes, it's the connecting piece between the two. | 00:43:09 | |
But it was meant to really recess and have the two volumes the historic house. | 00:43:13 | |
And the addition. | 00:43:19 | |
Really appear almost as. | 00:43:21 | |
Separate units as if you would have two houses. | 00:43:24 | |
Each on of 30 by 60 lot. | 00:43:27 | |
And so that hyphen is the connecting piece and it was kept further back. | 00:43:31 | |
And a flat roof. | 00:43:36 | |
As a as a separating element between the between the two that have the the pitch roofs. | 00:43:39 | |
I think the. | 00:43:47 | |
The fact that it has the Adu, by the way, is. | 00:43:48 | |
Helps the city. | 00:43:52 | |
In a very small way, but helps the city achieve its. | 00:43:55 | |
Obligations to the state which is. | 00:43:59 | |
Twisting our arms and forcing us to cram all this stuff into a city where it doesn't belong anyway. | 00:44:01 | |
But. | 00:44:07 | |
They have to do it. | 00:44:09 | |
The. | 00:44:14 | |
If this were two lots instead of 1. | 00:44:15 | |
Somebody would buy that lot and they'd build a house there. That's what's happening. | 00:44:20 | |
Let's see that it's that big of a deal. | 00:44:25 | |
Go ahead. | 00:44:28 | |
I just had a question on the project data sheet. It says the existing condition. The building height is 22 feet 3 inches and the | 00:44:30 | |
proposed condition is 24 feet 6 inches. | 00:44:35 | |
Though you're saying that they're the same and from looking at the drawings it does look higher to me that maybe the roof deck but | 00:44:40 | |
the the glass railing is is higher but the the solid surface of the roof. | 00:44:47 | |
If you look at the side elevation on that page there. | 00:44:54 | |
It's like just just slightly above the the peak of the existing roof and that's the glass railing. Well, look at the West | 00:45:00 | |
elevation, it shows the peak of the roof is right at the top of the rail of the roof deck. So I've assumed that that's where the | 00:45:04 | |
roof. | 00:45:09 | |
Right. So when I say that the, the roof is not any higher. | 00:45:14 | |
It's. I mean that. | 00:45:18 | |
Peak is, yeah. | 00:45:20 | |
Yeah, right there at the top. So it's. | 00:45:24 | |
Uh. | 00:45:27 | |
A little bit higher, you're right. Yeah, that just that peak, but the majority of the glass railing, the rest of the roof is. | 00:45:28 | |
Is down and the glass reeling is then making up that. | 00:45:34 | |
That other height up to the required height. | 00:45:37 | |
You mentioned something about the, I think the back staircase that. | 00:45:41 | |
You could do something a little different to. | 00:45:45 | |
Is this with the view? Yeah, it wasn't the staircase, it was just that that upper railing. | 00:45:48 | |
And the the owner was concerned because the flagging goes all the way to the top of the. | 00:45:53 | |
Of the guardrail. | 00:45:59 | |
But the upper, you know, 16 inches of that is, is the glass. Hmm. And so they're thinking it was gonna be, you know, solid all the | 00:46:01 | |
way up. | 00:46:05 | |
So they were asking in terms of. | 00:46:10 | |
If instead of the glass if we use cable rail or something else to? | 00:46:12 | |
You know have. | 00:46:16 | |
You know they they have a spectacular view looking straight out, but they were just hoping to out of their bedroom window. | 00:46:18 | |
To keep their little. | 00:46:23 | |
Their little peak. So the owners are willing to consider like a cable rail or something like that instead of the glass. | 00:46:26 | |
Something that would be, you know, light and. | 00:46:33 | |
Not add to the you know to the mass of the building. | 00:46:36 | |
I mean, I looked at the story polls. | 00:46:42 | |
Several times. | 00:46:44 | |
And they they really do look. | 00:46:46 | |
They look higher than what it looks like in the drawing. | 00:46:48 | |
To me and and maybe. | 00:46:51 | |
I I don't know if they always get the angles correct, but. | 00:46:54 | |
Umm. | 00:46:58 | |
It it did look. | 00:46:59 | |
Pretty big, and considering that it's on a bit of a slope too, so that the whole thing could be a little bit lower seems to me. | 00:47:00 | |
Unless you have really high ceilings, which I'm I'm not. I forget what ceiling high we do have the the garage and the and the AU | 00:47:09 | |
is basically right at grade. I mean without. | 00:47:14 | |
You know, digging down subterranean. | 00:47:20 | |
Ohh, it's it's right at grade. | 00:47:23 | |
Well, what's your pleasure here folks? And. | 00:47:29 | |
Just just to add, part of the the connection was the. | 00:47:32 | |
Floor levels that the the main. | 00:47:36 | |
The main living space that connects to the to the historic house. | 00:47:38 | |
Is just only slightly higher than the historic house. | 00:47:44 | |
You know with with the garage in 80 below. | 00:47:47 | |
So. | 00:47:49 | |
You know, they wanted to maintain a, you know, fairly close relationship between the house and the the existing house and the | 00:47:52 | |
addition in terms of those floor levels. | 00:47:56 | |
That are, you know, fair fairly close a couple of feet. | 00:48:00 | |
So it's not like we're adding a, you know? | 00:48:05 | |
2nd floor on top of the existing house in terms of high. | 00:48:07 | |
So we've really tried to. | 00:48:12 | |
To keep it down, but keep the volumes inside of also, you know. | 00:48:13 | |
Nice as well. | 00:48:18 | |
What is the reason you're changing the front part of the cottage? The porch part? The door? Well, part of it was the fact that the | 00:48:21 | |
the owner spent considerable time and effort. | 00:48:26 | |
Designing and building the the front wall that if you notice the. | 00:48:33 | |
Still in the very artistic wall and the gates. | 00:48:37 | |
And they really want to maintain those. But. | 00:48:40 | |
We wanted to but. | 00:48:44 | |
Where the front door is now is really going to be part of their kind of more private space. | 00:48:45 | |
And so with the front, the main door being in the addition. | 00:48:51 | |
We wanted to be able to steer people to the main door. | 00:48:55 | |
So they don't just, you know, walk up to the. | 00:48:59 | |
Existing stairs as the. | 00:49:03 | |
You know front door, so the main front door is in the addition. | 00:49:05 | |
Now and so by. | 00:49:08 | |
Returning the stair. | 00:49:11 | |
It. | 00:49:13 | |
Orients people because they didn't want to move the gates, because their gates and walls are in place. They wanted to keep those. | 00:49:15 | |
It orients people to go towards the entry instead of. | 00:49:22 | |
To the. | 00:49:26 | |
The old porch. | 00:49:28 | |
And they wanted to also have a Porsche to be able to sit out. | 00:49:30 | |
Outside on that, on that portion. | 00:49:33 | |
As well. | 00:49:36 | |
And which currently, obviously it's too small to do that. | 00:49:38 | |
So. | 00:49:41 | |
And talking with Kent CV. | 00:49:43 | |
You know design? Is it a way to? | 00:49:45 | |
There's lots of examples in Pacific Grove of that type of front porch orientation. | 00:49:49 | |
That spans. | 00:49:55 | |
You know. | 00:49:57 | |
Half 3/4 of the front elevation. | 00:49:58 | |
There's lots of examples of that type of. | 00:50:00 | |
Of. | 00:50:03 | |
You know, vernacular in Pacific Grove. | 00:50:05 | |
And so. | 00:50:07 | |
Building it in a similar fashion, similar design. | 00:50:10 | |
Kent was OK with it. | 00:50:13 | |
So we proceeded. | 00:50:15 | |
We did have a another house that had that situation of the different orientation. | 00:50:16 | |
And the owner did keep it at the original. | 00:50:21 | |
Orientation is shown, so we did have that before and the comment was made by Mr. Steers. | 00:50:23 | |
That you know what would be the big deal if we had the empty lot and we built. We just have another house there, however, because | 00:50:28 | |
I've researched this. | 00:50:31 | |
If my house, for instance, was to burn down more than 25%, I would have to enlarge my setbacks. | 00:50:34 | |
Instead of the six feet that I currently have. | 00:50:40 | |
To standards that would meet the fire departments approval. So I think I don't know if it's a 10 foot or 12 foot side setback that | 00:50:42 | |
would have to be allowed that would look more open. | 00:50:47 | |
Than having a massive building like this. | 00:50:52 | |
And for me, the Adu is over the top. It's like asking for cake and ice cream too. | 00:50:55 | |
And. | 00:51:00 | |
I could see if the property did not include the Adu, but to say all of this mass and the Adu which is allowable for me is over the | 00:51:01 | |
top. | 00:51:04 | |
So I absolutely can't say I. | 00:51:09 | |
I approve with this because a new house would make it look more wide open with a 12 foot side set back on both sides. | 00:51:11 | |
Correct me if I'm wrong, 60 by 60 a lot side set back is 6 feet to five. Not the older standards, but if my house because I know I | 00:51:21 | |
have a six foot set back and three feet one side, 3 feet on the other side and if I have more than 25, anybody who has a small | 00:51:26 | |
House of current historic house, if you haven't you have to have a larger set back to make sure that the fire equipment can get | 00:51:31 | |
in. | 00:51:37 | |
That's what my. | 00:51:43 | |
That isn't that. That's. | 00:51:45 | |
That is not accurate. No. The setbacks on the zoning are or the setbacks. | 00:51:47 | |
That's not what my insurer said. I'll have to check that. | 00:51:52 | |
But that may be the case with your insurer. | 00:51:55 | |
But not when it comes to building a property, or what the what a municipality sets for their zoning. | 00:51:58 | |
The insurance company may have their own requirements for your home and for their what they will ensure. | 00:52:03 | |
But that's not. | 00:52:09 | |
The requirements for the city to set those. | 00:52:11 | |
Wow, it seems like the two should be aligned, because how can you get insurance? And insurance is a deal. Not for here. OK, it's | 00:52:14 | |
insurance. | 00:52:17 | |
But we all need it, and they're going away. | 00:52:22 | |
How to get insured? OK, another issue for another time. | 00:52:27 | |
Well, we need to make a decision here, folks. | 00:52:34 | |
So, Jennifer, yeah, I would just like to say that for one thing, I think right now I know there's a gate at the front that leads | 00:52:36 | |
you to the front door. And I think if you're going to change the front of the house like that. | 00:52:42 | |
Why is it even on the HR? I I mean you. You're not supposed to be able to change the visual aspects from the street of a historic | 00:52:48 | |
structure. | 00:52:52 | |
So I don't think that that should be allowed. | 00:52:56 | |
And I have to agree that I although I understand adding the Adu, you know people are doing that and it's it's accepted, but | 00:52:59 | |
without the Adu this would be so would be much smaller and much more acceptable to me. | 00:53:05 | |
I sort of feel sometimes like our charge is to try and keep the character of Pacific Grove as it is and if we keep. | 00:53:11 | |
Letting these new structures. | 00:53:18 | |
Be built. | 00:53:20 | |
You know what's going to happen over time is my concern. That's all. | 00:53:22 | |
Feel they're large. | 00:53:30 | |
Proper. | 00:53:31 | |
In that neighborhood. | 00:53:32 | |
That are. | 00:53:34 | |
Of equal height and. | 00:53:35 | |
Umm. | 00:53:37 | |
Ground coverage is this proposed project. | 00:53:38 | |
If you look in, there's some very large houses around. | 00:53:42 | |
And so I don't think it's out of place. | 00:53:45 | |
Regarding size. | 00:53:48 | |
I walked all around. | 00:53:50 | |
The streets and there are some very large houses. | 00:53:52 | |
I think being on this like a dividing it as separate houses, if it was built separately it probably would have been approved. | 00:53:55 | |
On a single lot. Umm, So my feeling is that. | 00:54:03 | |
I would approve the plans as is. | 00:54:08 | |
If if I if I may, actually the house behind is significantly large. | 00:54:15 | |
As well. | 00:54:20 | |
And. | 00:54:21 | |
The neighborhood is different because it does have the apartments. | 00:54:22 | |
Directly to the South, which is very large building. | 00:54:28 | |
It has. | 00:54:31 | |
Two churches that are, you know, right in that same neighborhood. Again, large. | 00:54:32 | |
Large buildings. | 00:54:37 | |
So that the the scale around the property. | 00:54:40 | |
Is as you said. | 00:54:44 | |
Of. | 00:54:45 | |
Quite a number of of larger. | 00:54:46 | |
Larger buildings rather as residential or. | 00:54:48 | |
Churches or. | 00:54:51 | |
And so on, but it is. | 00:54:52 | |
In keeping in the scale. | 00:54:56 | |
We felt. | 00:54:57 | |
And please, nobody is else is well really talked about the changing of the front and I just I that's one thing I really have a | 00:54:59 | |
problem with is changing the the face of the house. | 00:55:04 | |
No, I I said that too. And I feel the same way. I think if you start, I mean, you're not supposed to be feeling with the front of | 00:55:11 | |
the house. I mean that's supposed to. That's part of the character of the house. | 00:55:16 | |
And we've turned so many places down that have wanted to do put a porch or something like that. So I would not, under those | 00:55:20 | |
conditions, to be able to vote for it. | 00:55:25 | |
And I point out something that we miss all the time. | 00:55:31 | |
This is an R3 PGR zone. | 00:55:35 | |
So the city has already zoned it. | 00:55:39 | |
As. | 00:55:42 | |
Allowing it to be bigger than an R1, than a single family house. It's not a single family house. Doesn't have to be. The city | 00:55:44 | |
didn't want it to be. | 00:55:49 | |
It's supposed to be bigger. | 00:55:54 | |
The height limits are a little bit higher, the setbacks are a little less. | 00:55:57 | |
The square footages are a little bit larger on a lot like this. | 00:56:01 | |
And it's what they bought when they paid for the. | 00:56:06 | |
Property. | 00:56:09 | |
So some of this. | 00:56:11 | |
Some of the comments about the size of the house I think are. | 00:56:13 | |
A little bit out of place maybe. | 00:56:20 | |
It does not preclude. It does not take away from the front of the house not meeting historic standards of what we're currently | 00:56:24 | |
tasked to do that you must agree on. | 00:56:28 | |
At the front of the house is being changed. | 00:56:34 | |
And we have not approved that on many, in many cases, many circumstances. | 00:56:36 | |
You don't have to approve it now. | 00:56:42 | |
OK. | 00:56:43 | |
Ohh, that. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Just to say that I concur with my other committee members that the front of the House | 00:56:46 | |
at the very least. | 00:56:49 | |
Should not be changed. | 00:56:53 | |
That can be a condition of the approval. | 00:56:57 | |
That could be a condition. | 00:57:00 | |
Somehow, visually though, I think the the new design is more appealing. | 00:57:03 | |
Is is the door placement moving or just the so it's just the porch, correct? So it's not gonna the house stays the same in that | 00:57:09 | |
area? | 00:57:13 | |
A porch can be removed or not. | 00:57:18 | |
So I I think the door and the windows remain. | 00:57:20 | |
Correct the current stairs. | 00:57:25 | |
Invite you to go up to that door, and now they don't want you to go up to that door. So something needs to be changed, but it | 00:57:28 | |
could be. | 00:57:31 | |
Yes. | 00:57:35 | |
Umm. | 00:57:39 | |
Question I have when I look at the story polls and and look at the height of the ribbon or whatever you call it. | 00:57:39 | |
Is that the height of including the the viewpoint and the the glass perimeter of the? It is so really the house is gonna be | 00:57:46 | |
somewhat lower than the way it kind of looks right there. | 00:57:52 | |
In terms of the solid roof, yes, the solid roof would be lower than what those sort of poles. | 00:57:59 | |
OK. | 00:58:03 | |
Well. | 00:58:07 | |
Rick, do you want to make a motion? | 00:58:08 | |
I would move that we approve the project as. | 00:58:11 | |
Presented. | 00:58:15 | |
I expect that. | 00:58:17 | |
Maybe some of you want to add a few conditions to that. Is that so? | 00:58:19 | |
I would I would add a condition that that that all. | 00:58:24 | |
Hair be made to. | 00:58:28 | |
Help with the neighbors viewpoint as far as the staircase and and the railings. | 00:58:33 | |
But I think you heard us say that. | 00:58:38 | |
And I think we want to do that. | 00:58:41 | |
Do we have a second? No changes made to the front? | 00:58:44 | |
That is my question that isn't. | 00:58:47 | |
But that's not what I said, just I wanted to have that clarity. | 00:58:49 | |
I think it should be a condition that the front of the house original house has not changed. | 00:58:56 | |
Well. | 00:59:01 | |
I think it needs to be changed at least a little bit to prevent people from wanting It's It's the porch though. It's not the house | 00:59:04 | |
is gonna change, it's just through the chair. There's a motion made. Is there a second? | 00:59:09 | |
But we're still working on the motion here. It's being modified. | 00:59:16 | |
So far, the motion is to accept the project and to mitigate the. | 00:59:21 | |
The back staircase. | 00:59:26 | |
Do we have a second to the motion? | 00:59:29 | |
I second. | 00:59:31 | |
Thank you. | 00:59:32 | |
Can we have a? | 00:59:34 | |
Roll call vote please. | 00:59:36 | |
Member Steers. | 00:59:40 | |
Aye. | 00:59:42 | |
Member Greening. | 00:59:43 | |
Member, please. | 00:59:46 | |
Member Grannis. | 00:59:48 | |
Remember Beckett? | 00:59:51 | |
No. | 00:59:52 | |
Remember Anton? | 00:59:53 | |
Aye. | 00:59:55 | |
Three eyes, 3 nays. | 00:59:58 | |
It is tied and that means I believe. | 01:00:00 | |
Per our. | 01:00:04 | |
Guidelines that the motion fails. | 01:00:06 | |
Like that correctly. Let me look that up. | 01:00:09 | |
Sounds right. | 01:00:12 | |
Yes. | 01:00:13 | |
Yeah, the motion fails. | 01:00:15 | |
So added. | 01:00:18 | |
A condition on that. | 01:00:20 | |
To. | 01:00:23 | |
Preserve the character of the front entrance. | 01:00:25 | |
More carefully. | 01:00:29 | |
I I think. | 01:00:31 | |
Will you make that in the form of a motion, please? | 01:00:32 | |
The I think the owners would be willing to entertain. | 01:00:36 | |
Something along those lines of. | 01:00:41 | |
The front end modifying the front entry, if that would mean. | 01:00:44 | |
Yeah, I think the model. I think you're right, the front entry needs to be modified but in a. | 01:00:47 | |
In a smaller or less intrusive manner, and I don't know how to say that. | 01:01:00 | |
Motion. | 01:01:04 | |
Umm. | 01:01:06 | |
Let the roof over the door. | 01:01:09 | |
Remain pretty much as it is and not extend all the way to the end of the porch. The porch itself is extending. | 01:01:12 | |
To the left. | 01:01:20 | |
Maybe we should just leave the porch alone. | 01:01:23 | |
But. | 01:01:27 | |
That's quite the motion, Rick. | 01:01:31 | |
How about how about thinking it through? The steroid needs to not go down to the sidewalk. That's what really has to happen. Or | 01:01:35 | |
something else? | 01:01:40 | |
Needs to be in front of the stairway, like a gate or a wall or something. Let me ask our staff person, could we approve the | 01:01:45 | |
project? | 01:01:49 | |
And request that the design of the front. | 01:01:53 | |
Porch. | 01:01:57 | |
Come back to us. | 01:01:59 | |
Next month. | 01:02:00 | |
If we. | 01:02:02 | |
That proved the concept of the project with that stipulation that we come back with. | 01:02:03 | |
With a design that we can approve. | 01:02:08 | |
Well, or you could have. We have done this in the past subcommittee. | 01:02:12 | |
Comes and reviews the new design. | 01:02:17 | |
Yes. | 01:02:21 | |
Subcommittee. | 01:02:24 | |
Of this group. | 01:02:25 | |
That that would be two people. | 01:02:26 | |
Like to see what we're approving before we approve it. We've run into this before. | 01:02:29 | |
That we approve. | 01:02:33 | |
You know, it just starts to lead a precedent and I just that's not OK with me that that something gets approved before it. But the | 01:02:34 | |
audience, no, no audience, sorry. One one option would be just we continue this to the next meeting and the architect bringing | 01:02:40 | |
forward. | 01:02:45 | |
A new design of the front. | 01:02:52 | |
OK. | 01:02:55 | |
Make a comment. | 01:02:56 | |
The third. | 01:02:59 | |
The other option is to. | 01:03:01 | |
Approve the project with the porch being the same, and if they choose to come later with a new project, being the front porch. | 01:03:05 | |
That could be also done. So you could say yeah, yeah, keep it suggesting. | 01:03:13 | |
Or continue the whole project. I hate to do that, but the front porch could be on this. We have to say this in front of the. | 01:03:19 | |
The audience. We can't have discussion amongst ourselves. | 01:03:26 | |
My my question is, this is always been my I have a historic house, of course. | 01:03:29 | |
And it's always been my understanding that I cannot alter. | 01:03:34 | |
The view of my house from the street. I could not put a front porch on my house, period. So I don't understand why this is such a | 01:03:37 | |
big question because it's my understanding that that's sort of the rule. | 01:03:43 | |
Actually, no it's not. I'll let the staff, I'll let staff answer that. But I do have a you need to when when making any findings | 01:03:50 | |
for anything, we need to go to the code and and the findings required architectural and general appearance of the completed | 01:03:56 | |
project compatible, compatible with the neighborhood. | 01:04:02 | |
The project will neither be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city nor impair the desirability of | 01:04:09 | |
investment or occupation in the neighborhood. | 01:04:13 | |
The Committee has been guided by and has been made reference to, applicable provisions of the architectural review guidelines in | 01:04:18 | |
making its determinations. | 01:04:21 | |
Additional findings are exterior alterations by structure on the historic resources inventories consistent with the Secretary of | 01:04:26 | |
Interior Standards, and I do have to point out. | 01:04:30 | |
That a phase two report by historian was provided for that and that's. | 01:04:35 | |
What they go by. | 01:04:40 | |
So those are the findings for the Secretary of Interior. | 01:04:42 | |
And unless you have something opposite of that, and that's for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, because there are | 01:04:46 | |
different standards for the Secretary of Interior. | 01:04:50 | |
And that the exterior alterations of any structure on the Historic Resources Inventory complies with the appendices. | 01:04:54 | |
One through four of the Pacific Grove Architectural Review Guidelines, so. | 01:05:01 | |
This is an architectural review committee. | 01:05:05 | |
And your findings for what you do moving forward? | 01:05:08 | |
Need to meet what our zoning requires you of the of the committee. | 01:05:13 | |
So. | 01:05:18 | |
Well, my only, you know the Secretary of Interior Standards does state the historic character of the property will be retained and | 01:05:20 | |
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the | 01:05:24 | |
property will be avoided. | 01:05:29 | |
Will. | 01:05:40 | |
This staff person, what do you recommend? | 01:05:43 | |
Well, just we did have a qualified historian. | 01:05:45 | |
And say that this project does meet the Secretary of Interior standards for historic home so. | 01:05:49 | |
And we did have discussions with Kent about that front porch and. | 01:05:55 | |
Then pretty good, but. | 01:05:59 | |
Besides. | 01:06:01 | |
That point the owners just said that part of the reason for the whole porch thing is. | 01:06:02 | |
The way the wind comes or whatever with that existing porch cover. | 01:06:08 | |
It blows, It comes off that roof, blows it against the door, and they can't even open the door because the swells swells up. | 01:06:12 | |
And gets causing problems. | 01:06:19 | |
When they have a storm and that was part of the. | 01:06:22 | |
Desire to increase the roof coverage at that front. | 01:06:25 | |
Or if there was a logical thing besides just. | 01:06:29 | |
Willy nilly changing it. | 01:06:32 | |
Well. | 01:06:38 | |
Not quite sure how to proceed here and. | 01:06:40 | |
And I think staff suggested perhaps the subcommittee for the. | 01:06:43 | |
Which would be a subcommittee, if I remember correctly, via subcommittee of members of this board. Mm-hmm. Should we just just | 01:06:48 | |
resolve the front porch? | 01:06:52 | |
Is it just people are making decisions without us really having a vote? This is. | 01:06:57 | |
Doesn't feel we're not right making a decision here. We're going and you may be part of the subcommittee. | 01:07:02 | |
Yes, you can ask to be part of the subcommittee. | 01:07:07 | |
So is that your best recommendation from our staff people? | 01:07:11 | |
Do you want? | 01:07:16 | |
But but I'm still I'm confused as to whether we. | 01:07:17 | |
Support the whole project with that. | 01:07:20 | |
Stipulation or whether we continue the whole thing and. | 01:07:23 | |
I'm not quite sure how to proceed here it it might be simplest at this point since you are in support of the project other than | 01:07:28 | |
the porch, just to continue it and. | 01:07:32 | |
The architect has heard you and we'll come back with a redesign and hopefully we won't need to discuss it for as long because | 01:07:37 | |
we'll we'll focus on the porch because you seem to be OK with. | 01:07:44 | |
The rest of it well and I think to to be really sure that what the rules are. | 01:07:51 | |
Because it sounds like we're not quite. | 01:07:56 | |
So with that. | 01:07:59 | |
And we have a vote to continue. | 01:08:01 | |
To a time uncertain, but that gives you a month. | 01:08:04 | |
Ohh. | 01:08:07 | |
And we have a. | 01:08:09 | |
Second it. | 01:08:10 | |
Able to continue. | 01:08:11 | |
2nd. | 01:08:14 | |
Roll call vote please. | 01:08:15 | |
Member Bickett. | 01:08:19 | |
Yes. | 01:08:20 | |
Remember steers? | 01:08:22 | |
Aye. | 01:08:23 | |
Number greening. | 01:08:24 | |
Member, please. | 01:08:26 | |
Number Grannis. | 01:08:28 | |
And Chair Anton. | 01:08:31 | |
Aye. | 01:08:32 | |
Unanimous vote the motion to continue. | 01:08:33 | |
And you said to a date. Uncertain. | 01:08:37 | |
Passes. | 01:08:40 | |
Thank you. | 01:08:43 | |
OK. | 01:08:46 | |
We're on to the next one, which is 111 10th St. and do we have a staff report? | 01:08:47 | |
We do. | 01:08:56 | |
Give me one moment, please. | 01:08:57 | |
I'd first like to address the the errata that was added, if you remember. | 01:09:08 | |
This is a continued item from from last meeting. | 01:09:14 | |
And when the agenda report was transferred from. | 01:09:17 | |
1. | 01:09:21 | |
Meeting to the next so for the way that our. | 01:09:23 | |
Program works to do these things. | 01:09:27 | |
The original. | 01:09:30 | |
That needed to be corrected. | 01:09:31 | |
Moved over. | 01:09:34 | |
And so. | 01:09:35 | |
At the last minute and we like to correct. | 01:09:37 | |
Anything that we find at the last minute, we did find that there was a correction that we felt important for you to have. | 01:09:40 | |
And it had to do with that AU and the original one, it had said that there was an AU that's going to be created. There is not an | 01:09:47 | |
AU being created to this. | 01:09:51 | |
So that errata is basically the same errata that came. | 01:09:55 | |
From the last report. | 01:09:59 | |
Just correcting that. It's a single it's going from an AU to a single family home. | 01:10:01 | |
Similar to know that. | 01:10:06 | |
Ohh yeah. | 01:10:09 | |
Sorry. | 01:10:11 | |
OK. | 01:10:14 | |
Umm. | 01:10:15 | |
This is 111 10th St. again the item that was continued from from last. | 01:10:17 | |
Meeting the subject property is located on the northeast corner of 10th and Pearl streets and is zoned. | 01:10:22 | |
R3 PGR. | 01:10:28 | |
The 3600 square foot lot has an existing 1117 square foot two-story single family dwelling. | 01:10:30 | |
With a 398 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit. | 01:10:37 | |
The single family dwelling unit and carriage port were constructed in 1926 and the date where the garage was enlarged and | 01:10:41 | |
converted to an 8 U could not be determined. | 01:10:46 | |
The property is located in the coastal zone and Archaeologically sensitive area in the city's area of special biological | 01:10:53 | |
significance. The property is also listed on the city's Historic Resources Inventory and PER. | 01:10:58 | |
Pacific Grove Municipal Code PGMC. | 01:11:05 | |
23.90. | 01:11:08 | |
.200 Cultural Resources of Phase Two Historic Assessment. | 01:11:10 | |
Prepared. | 01:11:16 | |
For the property by Qualified historian concluded the potential impact of the proposed development would be nominal to the | 01:11:17 | |
historic resource. | 01:11:20 | |
The applicant proposes the major remodel of an existing 1117 square foot two-story single family dwelling. | 01:11:25 | |
With that 398 square foot existing accessory dwelling unit. | 01:11:32 | |
The applicant proposes to connect the main level of the single family dwelling to the existing detached AU with a new 304 square | 01:11:36 | |
foot first floor addition. | 01:11:40 | |
The existing AD would be converted to both. | 01:11:46 | |
New primary living space and an attached 185 square foot garage. | 01:11:49 | |
A new 276 square foot second floor addition will be added to the existing rear second floor. | 01:11:55 | |
The proposed project includes a new 403 square foot driveway and a new 324 square foot wooden deck, which is only 24 inches above | 01:12:01 | |
grade. | 01:12:06 | |
The proposed project would result in the construction of a 2096 square foot, two-story single family dwelling with 185 square foot | 01:12:12 | |
attached garage. | 01:12:16 | |
And no tree removal is proposed. | 01:12:21 | |
On August 23rd, our last HRC meeting, the applicant presented this project and then at that time the. | 01:12:24 | |
HRC identified the following concerns. | 01:12:32 | |
One is that the roof height of the proposed addition was taller than the existing structure and should be reduced. | 01:12:35 | |
To the masking of the proposed additions appear overwhelming and did not blend well with neighborhood conditions. And three, the | 01:12:41 | |
proposed additions did not show substantial differentiation between the new work from the existing and therefore did not meet the | 01:12:45 | |
Secretary of Interior's guidelines. | 01:12:50 | |
For rehabilitation. | 01:12:55 | |
In response to these concerns, the applicant submitted revised plans that detail a reduced building height of the proposed | 01:12:57 | |
additions to be no taller than the existing structure. Let me. | 01:13:02 | |
Check out. | 01:13:13 | |
This is on page A. | 01:13:15 | |
Six O and six. | 01:13:17 | |
As you can see, this is these are the areas that were reduced. | 01:13:21 | |
They provided a mass study with 3D perspectives and a mass study field analysis. | 01:13:27 | |
Which? | 01:13:35 | |
This is the mass study. | 01:13:39 | |
And the mass study field analysis. And there are new detail, new window details on the South elevation of the 2nd floor hallway. | 01:13:42 | |
And new window details. | 01:13:50 | |
6. | 01:13:53 | |
These were the. | 01:14:02 | |
Windows. | 01:14:03 | |
The staff recommends HRC recommend approval of the proposed architectural permit to the Planning Commission, the subject to the | 01:14:06 | |
findings, conditions of approval and the sequel Class One, Class 31 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and historic | 01:14:11 | |
restoration rehabilitation. | 01:14:16 | |
Thank you. | 01:14:22 | |
All right, thank you. And I believe our the designer is present. | 01:14:23 | |
You'd like to speak. | 01:14:27 | |
Good afternoon, Claudia Ortiz and representing Craig and Lynn Harlan Collins on this project. | 01:14:40 | |
The. | 01:14:48 | |
Planner. There are really good job describing the changes and modifications we made to the project I believe. | 01:14:49 | |
And I'll go over them again, but I believe we addressed the concerns that were brought up at the previous hearing and. | 01:14:55 | |
I can start by saying that you know we did reduce the height of the addition by 1 foot 3 inches, so it brought it lower than the | 01:15:01 | |
existing. | 01:15:05 | |
Ridge or peak of the existing structure. | 01:15:09 | |
We also modify the windows on the South elevation. There was a concern with the neighbor. | 01:15:13 | |
With privacy. So we modify that window with an obscure glass and raise it to a transom window. | 01:15:18 | |
We also address the issue with the. | 01:15:24 | |
Fabric of the of the structure. We changed the siding and noted. | 01:15:27 | |
And clarify the the changes to the siding, noting what the existing looks like and what the proposed is going to look like to | 01:15:32 | |
differentiate. | 01:15:36 | |
The existing historic fabric versus the proposed the new fabric. | 01:15:40 | |
And also the trim around the windows is also noted here to show the difference between both historic and the proposed. | 01:15:44 | |
So we we addressed all those issues. | 01:15:53 | |
In regards to differentiating the histories, the historic portion of the building versus the new. | 01:15:58 | |
We also addressed the issue with the privacy. | 01:16:04 | |
That one of the neighbors brought up and also the issue with the height. | 01:16:07 | |
So that two, the way I see it, there was 2 main concerns. One of them has two parts, which is the 2 neighbors, one immediately to | 01:16:12 | |
the rear. | 01:16:16 | |
Concerned about the privacy and I believe we address that issue. | 01:16:20 | |
With the window that we modified. | 01:16:23 | |
And there was another neighbor to the southeast. | 01:16:25 | |
Of our property. | 01:16:28 | |
The percentage some concerns, however, I don't see. | 01:16:31 | |
The impact there and I and and. | 01:16:34 | |
There's no immediate. | 01:16:39 | |
Bulk or masks proposed immediately to their building. There's no shadows being casted to their patios and structure. There's no | 01:16:41 | |
privacy issues. | 01:16:46 | |
From our addition to. | 01:16:51 | |
That property. | 01:16:53 | |
So I don't see legitimate concerns from that specific neighbour, although they did bring up the issue with the addition, but | 01:16:55 | |
again. | 01:16:58 | |
We don't see. | 01:17:03 | |
A concern with that? | 01:17:04 | |
And the second part of the concern was the the mass in bulk. | 01:17:06 | |
So what what what I did is I went back to the neighborhood and. | 01:17:10 | |
Drove around, analyze all the properties again in the neighborhood and in the context of the neighborhood and. | 01:17:14 | |
Similarly to what was presented on the previous project. | 01:17:21 | |
You know most of the buildings surrounding this this site. | 01:17:24 | |
Are massive two-story. | 01:17:27 | |
Victorian style, Craftsman style structures and typically these buildings tend to be two stories massive. | 01:17:30 | |
Square in nature. | 01:17:38 | |
High pitches and so on. | 01:17:41 | |
So there's already a a precedence with. | 01:17:43 | |
Big, massive, bulky structures. Most of them also. | 01:17:46 | |
Have the facade. | 01:17:51 | |
Right up against the the sidewalk. So there there are two-story elements on the street. | 01:17:53 | |
And the reason why I'm bringing this up is because. | 01:17:58 | |
This will. | 01:18:03 | |
And and in reference to the issue with the Balkan Mass. | 01:18:04 | |
Our addition. | 01:18:08 | |
And I I illustrated on the analysis that we did the three-dimensional one and also the. | 01:18:09 | |
That the site analysis. | 01:18:16 | |
The addition is. | 01:18:18 | |
It's technically reads as a separate structure. | 01:18:20 | |
In in the I don't know if he can bring up and and and bring the the 3D. | 01:18:23 | |
Drawings here. | 01:18:28 | |
But as if you're if you're walking on the street, on the sidewalk and looking at the building. | 01:18:30 | |
Most of it is blocked by the immediate neighboring properties. You would have to be practically right in front of the the | 01:18:35 | |
building. | 01:18:39 | |
To notice the addition and even. | 01:18:43 | |
At that point, the addition reads as a as a separate structure. | 01:18:46 | |
Technically, leaving the historic building intact, you can't even tell that the historic structure was touched at all. | 01:18:51 | |
And. | 01:18:58 | |
So the. | 01:19:00 | |
Any impacts? | 01:19:01 | |
That you would. | 01:19:03 | |
You know, typically absurd. Observed from other similar projects, it's not. | 01:19:05 | |
The case here. | 01:19:11 | |
The case here is one that leaves the existing historic structure as is. | 01:19:12 | |
In addition, feels subordinate. | 01:19:17 | |
To the historic building. | 01:19:19 | |
And from it and then I have a different angles. | 01:19:22 | |
From different perspectives. | 01:19:24 | |
One from the neighbour to the southeast I just mentioned above on item and. | 01:19:27 | |
On the illustration #1. | 01:19:33 | |
And you can see how far away the building is. There's no impacts to that neighbor. | 01:19:35 | |
In fact, she has a building. | 01:19:39 | |
Next door. | 01:19:42 | |
That has a two-story element. | 01:19:43 | |
Like, literally right next to her. That's more of an impact. | 01:19:45 | |
Than what we're proposing. | 01:19:48 | |
And then on the north, on the item number 2 here, the Northeast. | 01:19:50 | |
Perspective. You can barely see the addition. | 01:19:54 | |
Between the buildings. | 01:19:57 | |
And you gotta take into account that there's trees on the on the street with the canopies that are not shown in here. | 01:19:59 | |
And also. | 01:20:05 | |
Perspective #3. | 01:20:07 | |
Looking back at the property, you can barely see the addition. Again, the addition feels. | 01:20:09 | |
Subordinate. | 01:20:14 | |
It's smaller, a lot smaller than the the existing structure and I think I brought this. | 01:20:15 | |
Up earlier at the previous hearing that the addition was not going to look massive. | 01:20:22 | |
Because you're looking at it from one perspective on paper. | 01:20:26 | |
Versus when you're in the street, you're looking at it from a perspective, so the addition being further back. | 01:20:29 | |
Looks smaller, which is the case? | 01:20:34 | |
Illustrated over here. | 01:20:36 | |
And umm. | 01:20:38 | |
As you can see on four and five. | 01:20:39 | |
#4 you again? | 01:20:43 | |
The addition is minimal. | 01:20:45 | |
Non invasive and a number of. | 01:20:46 | |
I don't see a number here, but #5 I believe you can't even see the addition. | 01:20:49 | |
So standing directly in front of the building. | 01:20:52 | |
You can't even tell there was an addition to the property, so I supported this. | 01:20:55 | |
These diagrams with also. | 01:21:00 | |
Photorealistic. | 01:21:03 | |
Superimpose. | 01:21:05 | |
To. | 01:21:09 | |
To support my my point here, and from that perspective, it it's it's exactly identical. | 01:21:09 | |
So my point is that concern with mass and bulk is. | 01:21:15 | |
Very minimal. | 01:21:19 | |
And again, the structure itself is in keeping with the. | 01:21:21 | |
Neighboring properties in the context of the neighborhood with a, the Victorian and. | 01:21:25 | |
In a crafting style, homes in apartment complex in the neighborhood that are massive and. | 01:21:30 | |
And and and bulky. | 01:21:35 | |
Although that is not the scenario with our project because we still read the historic. | 01:21:37 | |
You know, 1 1/2 story building. | 01:21:41 | |
So we're maintaining that aspect from the street that's not changing unlike other projects that I've seen approved. | 01:21:43 | |
I also submitted a letter. | 01:21:49 | |
I don't know if we can bring that up or if we can put it in here, but I. | 01:21:51 | |
Did a study of previous projects that were approved by the city. | 01:21:54 | |
And the additions were? | 01:21:59 | |
Significant and massive and and I'm not saying that. | 01:22:01 | |
We're going to piggyback off of them, but I just want to prove a point that what what we're proposing here is not. | 01:22:05 | |
Something that hasn't been approved before. | 01:22:10 | |
By this committee, it's not something that the city has not accepted before. | 01:22:13 | |
We're not reinventing the wheel. | 01:22:18 | |
And we're not. | 01:22:19 | |
Shoving a concept here. | 01:22:21 | |
There is out of character with with the city. | 01:22:24 | |
Overall | 01:22:27 | |
architectural style and with what's been approved in the past. | 01:22:28 | |
So if we can continue moving this page up so you can see, you know if there's a way to move. | 01:22:32 | |
To the actual. | 01:22:38 | |
As you can see, and then. | 01:22:39 | |
You can see how. | 01:22:41 | |
You have one story buildings. | 01:22:42 | |
And even though a case was brought up on my project that made my addition was taller than the existing. | 01:22:44 | |
Other projects have additions that are. | 01:22:51 | |
Well above. | 01:22:54 | |
The existing historic building. | 01:22:55 | |
And not just in one case, but in other cases as well. | 01:22:57 | |
And very. | 01:23:00 | |
Intrusive and massive additions. Additions that. | 01:23:02 | |
Really alter the fabric of the historic building significantly. | 01:23:06 | |
Ours barely touches the very small footprint of it. | 01:23:11 | |
Umm. | 01:23:14 | |
Some are additions that are visible from the street. | 01:23:15 | |
Which on Sequoia? | 01:23:18 | |
I I think it's not acceptable but. | 01:23:20 | |
In any event. | 01:23:23 | |
Those were approved. | 01:23:24 | |
So. | 01:23:25 | |
The point that I'm trying to make is and I hope you see it my way. | 01:23:27 | |
We have a project that from the street, from the public view, looks very minimal. | 01:23:31 | |
Additionally, it's very minimal, non invasive. | 01:23:36 | |
It's in, it's in. | 01:23:38 | |
Keeping with the surrounding properties, it does not cost. | 01:23:40 | |
Any significant issues to the neighboring properties, shadows, views and so on? | 01:23:44 | |
And we corrected the issues with the height that you brought up and the the privacy that was brought up and I think I demonstrated | 01:23:49 | |
here. | 01:23:53 | |
That our mass is not. | 01:23:58 | |
As. | 01:24:00 | |
Originally predicted it's very minimal and I believe. | 01:24:01 | |
Well. | 01:24:06 | |
You know and I'm running overtime here, I apologize, I just wanted to make sure that. | 01:24:07 | |
My point gets across that we're what we're proposing here. | 01:24:11 | |
Physically, from the street, what you see is very minimal. | 01:24:14 | |
So if there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to. There will, but I need to open the public comment. Sure. So OK. | 01:24:18 | |
And I will do that now. | 01:24:23 | |
And it looks like. | 01:24:25 | |
Nobody in the audience won't speak on this, but do we have any virtual? | 01:24:27 | |
Speakers. | 01:24:31 | |
I'm gonna guess we have. Miss Gianni's hand is raised. | 01:24:33 | |
Hi. | 01:24:39 | |
Thank you my my first concern is. | 01:24:40 | |
That. | 01:24:44 | |
What? | 01:24:46 | |
I hope that you will approve. | 01:24:47 | |
Is what's right for this. | 01:24:49 | |
For this small unique. | 01:24:51 | |
House. | 01:24:54 | |
And. | 01:24:57 | |
Not this. This. | 01:24:59 | |
Not be swayed by poor decisions that may have been made. | 01:25:02 | |
On on other houses, I certainly wouldn't want you to be. | 01:25:06 | |
Continuing a practice of. | 01:25:12 | |
Poor decisions. | 01:25:14 | |
Umm. | 01:25:16 | |
So. | 01:25:17 | |
Anyway. | 01:25:19 | |
To me. | 01:25:20 | |
I have trouble still with this, but my main concern. | 01:25:21 | |
Again, is archaeology because since. | 01:25:26 | |
I I mean. | 01:25:29 | |
I spoke last time because the. | 01:25:31 | |
The fact that the archaeologist did not find archaeological. | 01:25:34 | |
Artifacts. | 01:25:40 | |
Does not mean there should not be. There doesn't need to be tribal monitoring since that meeting, the last meeting. | 01:25:41 | |
The. | 01:25:51 | |
The. | 01:25:53 | |
Planning Commission finally had presented to them. | 01:25:54 | |
After you're waiting and waiting a. | 01:25:58 | |
A draft. | 01:26:02 | |
Archaeological resource. | 01:26:03 | |
And tribal monitoring protocol. | 01:26:06 | |
And they didn't have time to review it in full, but but since due to the late hour they they had the presentation. | 01:26:08 | |
And I've analyzed that thing. | 01:26:17 | |
I forget how many pages it is, but I did 19 pages of comments. | 01:26:21 | |
To analyze it. | 01:26:26 | |
Because. | 01:26:28 | |
Yes, there are a lot of issues with inconsistency, but one point. | 01:26:30 | |
That it made. | 01:26:36 | |
I think relatively clearly was that. | 01:26:38 | |
Umm. | 01:26:42 | |
That when you're in an archaeologically sensitive area like the coastal zone. | 01:26:43 | |
Or the cities archaeological zone. | 01:26:49 | |
Then you're you need. | 01:26:52 | |
To have meaningful. | 01:26:55 | |
Consultation with tribal leaders who've asked for it. | 01:26:57 | |
And if they want monitoring then there should be monitoring. | 01:27:01 | |
Umm. | 01:27:06 | |
So otherwise it's just like. | 01:27:07 | |
Any other place in town that is not in an archaeologically sensitive area if you're using the. | 01:27:09 | |
Inadvertent, standard, inadvertent discovery language. | 01:27:16 | |
It's not acknowledging that the coastal zone. | 01:27:22 | |
Is an archaeologically sensitive area and as I pointed out last time and in a letter to you. | 01:27:26 | |
The city has a map that shows that there is a designated archaeological site very close to this property. | 01:27:32 | |
So please, if you would request our tribal monitoring, that would be most appropriate. Thank you. | 01:27:41 | |
Thank you. | 01:27:49 | |
Sorry, I have Miss Dahmer. | 01:27:54 | |
Thank you, Laurel. | 01:27:57 | |
Of course I agree with Lisa on all of that, but I can add here that. | 01:27:59 | |
This is a unique little house. The roof line from all angles and the protrusion out the side. The fact that they are taking away | 01:28:05 | |
in a DU. | 01:28:11 | |
And the thing that you are. | 01:28:17 | |
To approve something our. | 01:28:19 | |
Architecturally and historically. | 01:28:22 | |
Needs to fit, each side is different and the context and this. | 01:28:26 | |
Addition. | 01:28:32 | |
Overwhelms and incorporates so much. | 01:28:34 | |
This, this poor, beautiful little cottage is lost. | 01:28:39 | |
From looking at it many angles and I really. | 01:28:46 | |
I understand that he touts all these others. | 01:28:51 | |
I mean his his point, his point. His point definitely said that other things have been done to other properties, but it should be | 01:28:55 | |
site specific and this one overwhelms. | 01:29:01 | |
Thank you very much. | 01:29:09 | |
Thank you. | 01:29:11 | |
Dale Ellis. | 01:29:16 | |
Good afternoon. | 01:29:25 | |
Are you able to hear me? | 01:29:27 | |
Hello. | 01:29:32 | |
We hear you. | 01:29:34 | |
Will you hear me? Thank you. | 01:29:35 | |
Would it be possible to have the screen please? | 01:29:37 | |
Have Mr. Queen. | 01:29:44 | |
You wish to speak to the designer? | 01:29:47 | |
I don't understand. We don't have this public comment. This is just time for you to to make your comment and not speak with the | 01:29:50 | |
designer. No, I understand, but I have some documents I would like to show. | 01:29:55 | |
You you can't share documents from home. | 01:30:02 | |
My name is Dale Ellis. I'm here on behalf of the. | 01:30:07 | |
Rudolphs who lived next door, they. | 01:30:11 | |
Spoke before. | 01:30:14 | |
I'm going to go quickly here the. | 01:30:19 | |
Architect presented in their revisions of mass studies. | 01:30:23 | |
Unfortunately, they are taken from vantages other than. | 01:30:29 | |
Those from the impact on the people closest to them, that is, there is no. | 01:30:34 | |
Bought the lot study. | 01:30:40 | |
Or description of how or showing of how they would the neighbors are going to be. | 01:30:42 | |
Impacted by the mass of this House. | 01:30:47 | |
The. | 01:30:51 | |
Study does not show A. | 01:30:52 | |
Any of the Windows or other administration that might be involved. | 01:30:55 | |
Again, those would potentially impact. | 01:31:00 | |
Umm. | 01:31:03 | |
There are some significant concerns as to how. | 01:31:06 | |
The exemptions for Sequa are being handled. | 01:31:10 | |
The exemptions generally for. | 01:31:14 | |
No Finding Friends find actual words here, so I'm not guessing at it. | 01:31:20 | |
The exemption for. | 01:31:25 | |
It's not showing up. | 01:31:30 | |
In the. | 01:31:34 | |
For the the additions and and what we call. | 01:31:37 | |
Minor alterations of existing structures. | 01:31:40 | |
The key consideration is whether or not the project involves negligible or no expansion of youths. | 01:31:45 | |
And most importantly, the IT is modified by the area. | 01:31:52 | |
The project located in is not environmentally sensitive well. | 01:31:56 | |
You have here an area that is clearly environmentally sensitive. | 01:32:00 | |
By the fact that it's historical, there are. | 01:32:04 | |
Archaeologic sites. | 01:32:06 | |
And it's in the cities. | 01:32:08 | |
Area of biological significance. | 01:32:11 | |
So that exemption does not. | 01:32:13 | |
Work in this particular case. | 01:32:16 | |
And the other exemption about restoration, rehabilitation, historic structure. | 01:32:19 | |
That's not the project you have in front of you. | 01:32:23 | |
What you have is a major addition. | 01:32:26 | |
Not the restoration, rehabilitation. | 01:32:30 | |
One other one last comment the. | 01:32:34 | |
Mr. Ortiz Made a. | 01:32:38 | |
Substantial point of the precedent of other applications. Mr. Ellis, you've commented comment time is up. OK, thank you. | 01:32:40 | |
OK. Thank you. | 01:32:50 | |
I see no other hands raised. | 01:32:54 | |
Alright, I'll close public comment. | 01:32:55 | |
And bring it back to the committee. | 01:32:58 | |
Or comments? | 01:33:01 | |
Would like to begin. | 01:33:03 | |
I want to address the. | 01:33:06 | |
Mr. Mendoza's report, where he actually says all excavation in such an archaeologically and historically sensitive region will | 01:33:09 | |
require. | 01:33:14 | |
Archaeological monitoring. | 01:33:19 | |
Et cetera, so. | 01:33:21 | |
His his report actually states that. So I I think that's. | 01:33:22 | |
Going to be required. | 01:33:27 | |
Other comments please. | 01:33:29 | |
Yes, I was looking at the page and Turnbull. | 01:33:33 | |
To see and I saw it was the house is actually eligible. | 01:33:37 | |
For the California Register. | 01:33:41 | |
And I don't have the, I don't have the information or I don't know. | 01:33:45 | |
What the actual? | 01:33:51 | |
Additional coverage can be for this property. | 01:33:53 | |
Umm. | 01:33:57 | |
It's. | 01:33:59 | |
You know, looking at it. | 01:34:01 | |
I don't know if there's you can add 100% of the original. | 01:34:03 | |
Size of the building or it's 50% and that's something I really don't know, but I did notice that it's different from the other | 01:34:07 | |
properties we've dealt with because it is eligible. | 01:34:12 | |
For the. | 01:34:18 | |
For the California Register. | 01:34:20 | |
So I don't know if we can do anything about this, but I'm just. | 01:34:22 | |
Trying to deal with the lack of information here. | 01:34:26 | |
Regarding size. | 01:34:30 | |
Of the addition. | 01:34:32 | |
Is this something that our staff people have a? | 01:34:35 | |
Comment on. | 01:34:39 | |
She. | 01:34:41 | |
She's asking about. | 01:34:42 | |
It's it's because it's on the it's eligible for the California Register. | 01:34:50 | |
Which? | 01:34:55 | |
Obviously has different. | 01:34:56 | |
It's in the page and Turnbull report. In the page in Turnbull report. | 01:34:58 | |
And what does? What do they? | 01:35:03 | |
Where they have different allowances for additions and on page nine of the state has different allowances. Is that what what | 01:35:05 | |
you're mentioning? | 01:35:09 | |
We don't know. We yes, We don't know. | 01:35:14 | |
So I'm just. | 01:35:17 | |
I'm just asking, allowances wouldn't be. | 01:35:18 | |
Because something is. | 01:35:23 | |
Eligible. | 01:35:25 | |
That. | 01:35:27 | |
I guess what you're asking or possibly if I'm hearing you right, maybe if you did add square footage, would it? | 01:35:28 | |
Eliminate from the state. | 01:35:34 | |
Well, I believe if you add too much it eliminates it. | 01:35:36 | |
Yeah, we would have to discuss that with Page and Turnbull or the OR the historians that are more familiar with the state | 01:35:39 | |
historic. | 01:35:43 | |
Completed phase two important, usually aggressive, sole decision. | 01:35:48 | |
Right. Let's keep it. Let's keep it up here. | 01:35:52 | |
Yeah. | 01:35:56 | |
No. | 01:36:02 | |
Ohh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, no that that was my my one concern. The other question I did have for the architect was the you're | 01:36:03 | |
putting like a a larger wood siding the same as the shingle. | 01:36:09 | |
But it's a larger size. | 01:36:15 | |
OK. Thank you. | 01:36:17 | |
I just had a I was a little confused by the packet that came because. | 01:36:23 | |
On the drawing, none of the drawings had new dates put on them, which I found to be a little bit confusing. They're still I'll | 01:36:30 | |
delete dated in July and but then the project data sheet is dated. | 01:36:36 | |
September 14th, 2023. | 01:36:42 | |
And on that the building height is remaining 22 feet, two inches. | 01:36:44 | |
And the existing condition is 21 foot 7 inches so. | 01:36:49 | |
I don't know whether the drawing is correct or the project data sheet is correct. | 01:36:54 | |
It would also be helpful in future. | 01:36:59 | |
To have changes annotated. | 01:37:02 | |
Either by a cloud or a circle or something, because it's very hard to see actually what had been changed in this packet, if if | 01:37:06 | |
anything had been changed. | 01:37:10 | |
120 pages. That's a rough estimate, but it's about 120 pages, not including the drawings. | 01:37:19 | |
And we had what? | 01:37:27 | |
Three or four days to look through this and everything else. | 01:37:29 | |
And the extra rod. | 01:37:33 | |
That's going crazy with your comments, please. | 01:37:35 | |
That's one of my comments. | 01:37:38 | |
It's hard to pour over this stuff. | 01:37:42 | |
And come to any sort of a decision when you've got all this? | 01:37:46 | |
I don't know. | 01:37:50 | |
But one thing that bothered me is that they list of. | 01:37:53 | |
Character defining features. | 01:38:00 | |
Included. | 01:38:05 | |
The sloping roof. | 01:38:08 | |
Of the existing house, but it did not include. | 01:38:10 | |
The fact that the fascia. | 01:38:13 | |
Line. | 01:38:16 | |
On the existing house, the historic house is lower than normal. It's probably probably the. | 01:38:17 | |
Plate height was 7 feet instead of. | 01:38:25 | |
8 feet or whatever it was. Whatever. | 01:38:27 | |
Was considered to be. | 01:38:30 | |
I mean, I can't go inside the house and measure these things, but it was low and I really think that's a major feature. | 01:38:32 | |
Of the character of the existing house and it was not addressed at all. | 01:38:42 | |
In the additions to it. | 01:38:49 | |
You know, there's no reason why not. | 01:38:52 | |
Couldn't we drop the plate height? | 01:38:57 | |
On the. | 01:39:00 | |
You know the you can't slope the roof any more than. | 01:39:03 | |
What it already is because we've got the height limits. | 01:39:08 | |
But the plate heights could be lower and the facial lines could be running right along the tops of the windows and doors. | 01:39:12 | |
And the addition and it would go a long way towards making the addition. | 01:39:19 | |
Compatible. | 01:39:25 | |
And in character with the historic house. | 01:39:27 | |
And I think that's important. | 01:39:31 | |
Other than that. | 01:39:34 | |
I would like to say that once again. | 01:39:37 | |
This is an M3 zone. | 01:39:40 | |
Not an M1 zone, all the houses above it. | 01:39:43 | |
Going up the hill or M1 or R1, Excuse me. | 01:39:46 | |
They're zoned for single family residential. | 01:39:51 | |
But this is an R3 zone. | 01:39:54 | |
And the houses along Ocean View, you know, right across the street from the beach or the rather there are a lot of apartments and | 01:39:58 | |
bigger things along there. | 01:40:02 | |
Are. | 01:40:07 | |
R3. | 01:40:08 | |
And it's true. And this one is R3 as well and it. | 01:40:10 | |
Really does. | 01:40:13 | |
Fit into the way the. | 01:40:15 | |
City wanted the neighborhood to be structured so. | 01:40:17 | |
Be careful about comments about. | 01:40:22 | |
The large size of this thing. | 01:40:25 | |
Are they relevant or are they not? | 01:40:29 | |
OK. | 01:40:33 | |
I really don't have a much to say at this point because I am a little confused about. There is so much stuff to go through and. | 01:40:38 | |
I I love this little house, and I really think it's probably the only one. | 01:40:47 | |
In Pacific Grove that looks like this. When we first time I went by it, I thought, Oh my gosh. | 01:40:51 | |
And I am concerned. | 01:40:57 | |
Umm. | 01:40:59 | |
My biggest concern now is adding. | 01:41:00 | |
Adding on to where we're going to lose the house, the little cottage. | 01:41:03 | |
Before voting on this, I think the point was brought up and I would like to know the answer to Paige and Turnbull's comment about | 01:41:09 | |
being eligible for the California Register. I think that's a very valid question and I'd like to know that answer before we make a | 01:41:14 | |
decision on it. That's my own personal. | 01:41:19 | |
Decision and comment. Additionally, just as a matter of record, I did not think it was appropriate. | 01:41:25 | |
To put up past decisions of the HRC as a way of leveraging this property in terms of our vote, I thought that was not well called | 01:41:30 | |
for. And I would certainly hope that it's not done again because it did not make me feel that we were discussing the property. But | 01:41:37 | |
we were looking at other decisions from other committees that many of these people are not. We're not. | 01:41:44 | |
On that decision or other properties that have come before us, we're relatively a new committee. I've been on it for years, but | 01:41:52 | |
not everybody has. | 01:41:55 | |
And to spend time and. | 01:41:58 | |
And screen time looking at properties that had other decisions made did not seem appropriate to me as a matter of. | 01:42:00 | |
Fact. | 01:42:07 | |
One of my concerns was about the massing, which we've sort of talked about. | 01:42:12 | |
I I'm just. I guess it bothers me the the hallway that's kind of. | 01:42:16 | |
It just gives me a funny. | 01:42:23 | |
Feeling that there's just this long hallway between the two structures. Having said that. | 01:42:26 | |
It does differentiate. | 01:42:31 | |
The original building from the new which which I think is important. | 01:42:33 | |
I went back after I read this and I knew that you lowered the height which I. | 01:42:37 | |
Applaud, but I went back to look at the story polls to see if I. | 01:42:42 | |
Had a different thought. | 01:42:47 | |
And that they're kind of falling apart and not giving a very clear view. | 01:42:48 | |
Of of the new height level. Nor does it show some of the size because they're. | 01:42:54 | |
Falling apart? | 01:43:01 | |
Or not there in the 1st place, I've not sure. | 01:43:02 | |
Because I know they've been there quite a while. | 01:43:05 | |
Umm. | 01:43:07 | |
I didn't. | 01:43:09 | |
When when I look at the page here that that where you've. | 01:43:11 | |
Fitted it in. | 01:43:16 | |
Again, I like the fact that you don't see any of this from the front. I think that's good. | 01:43:17 | |
But when you look at it from the driveway side, then it's sort of overwhelming too. | 01:43:21 | |
And I don't know how accurate that is as far as relative to the house itself, but. | 01:43:27 | |
Umm. | 01:43:33 | |
I. | 01:43:36 | |
Let's see, what else was I saying? | 01:43:37 | |
There was a concern by one of the neighbors again that that. | 01:43:40 | |
The viewpoint from their side wasn't shown. | 01:43:43 | |
And I believe they were referring to. | 01:43:46 | |
That other page. | 01:43:49 | |
And frankly, this page. | 01:43:51 | |
I find very confusing. | 01:43:54 | |
This page here. | 01:43:57 | |
Because there's so much blank spot and I'm not sure what's even there, so I didn't find that helpful. | 01:43:59 | |
I thought the other the other viewpoint is much better Where? | 01:44:05 | |
You know where you fitted it in with the actual photograph. | 01:44:08 | |
So. | 01:44:13 | |
Umm. | 01:44:15 | |
Other comments or questions or do you? | 01:44:17 | |
Anybody have questions for the designer? Yes, Jennifer, I would just like to. | 01:44:20 | |
I find the there's a little dotted line on one of these drawings that's dated July 17th, 2023 that supposedly shows that the roof | 01:44:26 | |
lines gone down, but then on the project data sheet which was revised September 14th, 2023. | 01:44:33 | |
It's still 2022 feet two inches, so I would like that. | 01:44:41 | |
Either the project data sheet needs to be corrected. | 01:44:45 | |
Or the drawing needs something needs to These need to be In Sync with each other. | 01:44:48 | |
And it would be a good idea if we do receive more drawings, to have a current date on them, because I did find this very confusing | 01:44:52 | |
that everything's dated in July. I didn't know what I was looking at, so that's all I have to say about it. | 01:44:58 | |
Where are we here? | 01:45:09 | |
It's always very difficult. | 01:45:18 | |
I mean, times are changing. We have to accept that. I know that. | 01:45:21 | |
Umm. | 01:45:26 | |
Further comments. | 01: |