Parks, Recreation & Open Space Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi everyone. It is 7 PM. who will I will call this meeting of the planning and zoning commission Wednesday June 25th 2025 to order and I will start with the land acknowledgement. The city of Albany recognizes that we occupy the land originally protected by the confederated villages of Leon. We acknowledge the genocide that took place on these lands and must make strides to repay the moral debt that is owed to this indigenous people, specifically the Aloney tribe. We thank them for their contributions which have transformed our community and will continue to bring forth growth and unity. The city of Albany commits to sustaining ongoing relationships with the tribe and together build a better future for all that now make this their home. And with that, we can move to the roll call. Yes, Commissioner Mowman is absent today. Commissioner Pearson here. Commissioner Pilch may be coming late, so we'll announce him if he comes in. And Commissioner Watt here and Chair McCloud here. Uh with that, uh we'll move on to item two, exparte communications. I've had none. Any others? No. Seeing none, we will move on to item three, consent calendar. It is just the approval of minutes. And if anyone commissioner wishes to um pull that item from the consent calendar or any member of the public, now is the time to request that. Seeing no commissioner requests, any public request to pull that item from the consent calendar. If you wish to speak or uh talk about

the consent calendar, please use the raise a hand icon. No. Okay. So, we will move on to the consent calendar. Do we have a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve calendar as written. I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar as written. Second. And I do need I believe I need to be recused since I was not in attendance that day. Okay. Oh, no. I can vote. Okay. I'm happy to vote since there's three of us. Okay. Well, okay. Then we'll go to a vote. Uh, Commissioner Pearson, yes. Commissioner Wadi, I. And I also vote I. So, that approval of the minutes passes three to zero. Item four, public comments for persons desiring to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda. Please note that we limit each speaker to three minutes. Uh and this um also uh the Brown Act applies and limits the commission's ability to take and or discuss items that are not on the agenda. So there's no one here in the room to speak. So, if there's anyone online who wishes to speak um for the good of the city public comments, please raise your hand. Yes, please use use the raise the hand icon. And no one wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda. Not on the agenda. Right. So, we'll close item four, public comments, and move on to item 5-1, planning application PA25-012, 633 Carmel Avenue, design review to request to construct a 693 square foot second story edition. And we have a presentation.

Yes, we do, chair. Uh, good evening, commissioners and members of the public. Let me share my screen and then we will go from there. So, hello commissioners again, members of the public. My name is Mera Han, associate planner with the city. Tonight, I'm here to present a design review application PA25019 633 Carmel Avenue. I apologize that it wasn't a use permit. The design review, just only design review. All right. So, the subject lot is located on the east side of Carmemell Avenue across the street from Albany Memorial Park between Thousand Oaks Boulevard to the north and Portland Avenue to the south. The lot is developed with an 8,800 square foot approximately 18800 foot three-bedroom, oneb split level home constructed in 1934. So you can see the front on the upper right um corn corner and then the housing context. You can see it's the picture is a little blurry. It's from Google Earth but you can see that there's this the second level is uh re rece uh receded uh to the back. All right. So this is the site plan and the project scope. the existing main level has like you can see here I included um existing and proposed section drawings. So let me see if I can have my laser pointer here. So yeah that's the existing um section drawing and then the proposed. So I included this to illustrate the you know the changes. So as you can see the existing main level has interior stairs towards the rear. This is the rear. Okay. which lead to a 365 foot upper level and the 361q foot basement. Um so separately on that if

you see in the the site plan the lot also has a detached 345 foot onecar garage. So they're not um it's not part of the scope of work but in the future they plan to convert this into an ADU. Um so the project proposes to construct a new 693 square foot second story. So it's in blue towards the rear of the residence. So interior changes required for this include raising the floor of the existing basement. You can see here you raise that floor to extend the main level. So they're enlarging the main level and uh and demolishing a portion of the existing upper level to construct a new addition. Exterior changes include a new 75 foot rear porch with a trellis connecting the lower level here to the rear yard. All right. Okay. So, these are the proposed elevations. So, you can see that the new second story would be recessed approximately 27 ft from the existing front facade and 6 uh inches from the existing left north wall. the addition would be constructed which is they I should mention that the um the reason of that small recess on the left front wall is to meet um setback requirements. So that's how they avoided a use permit. Uh the addition would be constructed with a a very similar pitch uh gable roof that closely matches the slope of the roof of the at the existing upper level. The new roof at the addition includes a skylight providing natural light to the stairs and hallway. And the project would result in a four bedroomedroom three-b uh two 2100 square foot approximately two-story residence when with a 20 foot maximum height at the addition. Um so as I said the property owners plan to demolish the detached garage in the future and then uh construct an ADU. That's not part of the scope of the

design review process project. So, the proposed materials and colors uh include painted stuckco walls to match composition shingle roof, fiberglass uh clad windows, wood trellis, trim and casings. The project features a design color palette and materials to matching and complement the existing residence. So, I included this uh slide as the architect uh provided this illustration. And what I did is I juxtaposed the floor plan and uh the drawing he provided to show the proposed windows on the closest side to the neighbor and how the proposed windows are not aligned with the windows at the you know the neighboring property. So uh so yeah again the windows on the left north side are positioned in a way to avoid direct views to neighbors windows. In addition, the distance between the addition and neighboring properties to the south and rear would not create a significant impact on privacy. Um, so that staff has not received any correspondence regarding this project proposal and staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission review and approve the proposed project subject to the findings and standard conditions of approval. Okay, thank you for the presentation. Uh, does anyone have any questions for staff? No, just or Yes. Sorry, one question. So, can you just uh confirm that the front roof is going to remain clay tile, but then the new addition is going to have uh shingle roof. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. And um the applicant is online if you also have questions for them. Anyone have questions for the applicant? I do. Um,

could you pull up the elevations again, please? Yeah, that looks fine. Yeah. Um, so is the applicant online? Yes, I am. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Great. Are you the architect or owner? I'm the architect. Yeah. Hi. Um, my question is really why is the attic space so tall and why why is the roof kind of so high compared to the interior space? And also to me the windows also look kind of low in relationship to the interior space which also kind of accentuates the height of the attic space and the whole wall area above it. So uh the the project first started with kind of a steeper uh roof pitch but um staff has um asked us to reduce the the slope of the pitch. So we've we've done that. the attic. Uh we're trying to find a good balance for storage. Um these really small lots have uh very confined floor area ratio requirements. Um and so this allows them to have a little bit of storage up in the attic and also house u mechanical equipment up there. That makes sense. Um, so mechanical equipment be like um like an air handler or Yep. air handler. Um, and uh possibly uh like a on demand water heater, right? So I didn't see any um water heater on the plans. Um and then would this project be all electric?

Uh I think the stuff that we're adding Well, the ondemand hot water heater would not be electric. Um there's just not an efficient model for that. So that will still be gas. Um the uh mechanical equipment uh will be electric. It'll be a heat pump system. Okay. Uh well, that's my only real question. I I guess I understand the motivation for the height of the attic space, but then I find Well, okay, maybe we should that's enough. Uh we'll close uh questions and if there's anything else you want to add to inform us about the project. Um not really. I mean we've we've uh come up with this design just to get more space for um uh the residents uh more storage space um and have tried to work with uh staff um to uh create something that would be approved for this meeting. Okay, thank you. Um with that uh we'll close uh close comment and any public comment on this online. There's no one here in the room. Yeah. So, it's only If you wish to speak on this item, please use the raise the hand icon. Nope. Okay. So, we'll close public comment and move on to commissioner discussion. And I guess I would just lead it off by saying I find the the roof just kind of the height of it kind of out of proportion with the rest of the house visually. And um you know, especially if that's kind of monolithic stucco, I think that's going to look kind of really awkward and boxy.

Um you know, so I understand the idea of storage. Um, so either either the roof for me visually either the roof would be lowered or you need to do different kind of uh wall treatments, surface treatments, either change materials at the top and I would certainly raise the windows higher so it's not quite the appearance of um this big big wall space above the windows. So I don't know what other commissioners think but I mean otherwise I think the project's fine. I think it's great. Uh, you know, making good use of the floor space and the outdoor space, linking it, etc. I mean, my only concern is just the way that looks visually and looks way out of proportion to me. Yeah, I hadn't I hadn't thought about that. Um, but I see what you're talking about. Um, so I can understand. There's another house, I think it's on Washington or Portland, that has a really high third story, and it does um I see how this could look like that as well. Do we know what the what the ceiling height is in the attic? Did Did you see that? Well, it's those those dashed lines at the top above the windows. those horizontal lines represent the interior ceiling space. So, there's a pretty big space above it. Um, and I do understand the desire for storage, but I don't know just I mean, especially when you look at the height of the west free just the front elevation, it looks kind of way too tall compared to the existing house even. Um, I think it's accentuated by the windows being pretty low in the space. If the

windows were pushed higher, I think that would help. Um, and then often, you know, when we're trying to reduce the visual uh kind of verticality of something, you put in something horizontal around the eaves or some different material treatment. Um, so I would recommend something like that. I don't know. Commissioner Wadi, any thoughts or and maybe this is actually I'm realizing I now do have a quick question for staff. Um, is the project right now maxed out on their F as proposed? I'll check the staff report. I could look that up. I saw it was 49%. Yeah, it's pretty close to 0.55. So yeah, it is like 01. And if if the addition just sort of going to this point, if the addition expanded forward sort of in in plan view like horizontally um to capture, you know, a hallway for storage or something like that, would that count against the F if it was like a a closet? So long as there's proper head height, it would count against the F. Is that part of the issue? So at a attic level, because there's not full head height, it does not count. But if it was on the floor plan, it would That's correct. Um, yeah. I mean, similarly, I'm very conscientious about storage. I get it. Albany houses, tons of storage constraints. Um, but I also I do agree with you. It does feel a little bit topheavy right now. Um, you know, at a similar level, I have no concerns about a second story addition here. Both of the adjacent buildings have um additions. One is sort of set back with a large setback. The other neighbor, it's a lot shallower of a setback. So to me it's the overall the overall massing isn't actually the issue and at some level I would be fine with even the addition being closer to the street. So to me it's less of that visibility from the street and the overall size but it

does feel like proportionately a little bit top pvy and I I think it's just not helped by the fact that this the existing building is a fairly short one-story building without you know much of a sort of basement or sort of roof height. It is the sort of like tight um form. So I would similarly be be supportive of that you know dropping down or if there's some way that they have you know little bit of square footage to remain. I don't know if it's enough to be any kind of significant um you know storage capacity for them but I would also be open for them utilizing every last square foot of their F uh to be able to you know expand horizontally or or whatnot to be able to accommodate any kind of storage space. So, um, those are sort of my additional thoughts as well. The the front facade has those two beautiful big windows on the original home and the fact that the upper the addition has these tiny square windows sort of differentiates between the two. If the windows on the upper on the addition were larger, that like changed the aesthetic somewhat. or if they were rounded instead of being square to sort of draw the eye upwards. And maybe one other suggestion here and again I'm not always a big fan of sort of uh design by committee on the fly here but I do think it's more about like the the proportion from the street and you know maybe if the roof form was you know more of like a shed roof form but dropped lower at the front. So, it's sort of that proportion that you see in terms of when you're looking at the front facade to the addition drops down a little bit. I have less of a concern if it um rises taller in the back and maybe that's a way for them to get some storage space in the attic, you know, at the back half of the addition rather than it being sort of through a traditional gabled roof form.

Well, I could see the upper roof the pitch being a little lower or um a little steeper to match the front gable there on the south elevation. It looks like a steeper pitch. I mean, we could lower the pitch a bit, reduce the front elevation height and and the back and still have a pretty high I don't know, it looks like it's a five or six foot space in the middle going up. So, pardon. I'm seeing on the staff report now it's a.5 square foot wiggle room. So, that's really nothing. Not not much. I mean, you do get the trade-off. they're losing their storage basement and they want to replace that with the attic storage. So, you know, I don't I I could see maybe lowering the roof pitch to match the front uh gable on the south elevation and then doing some sort of treatment on the wall to break up the massing a little bit at least at the gable end. It could be a different material or some way to differentiate it. And I would also just raise the windows higher up. So it proportionally doesn't look like the windows are right in the middle of the wall. Maybe more towards um you know not threequarters of the way up but almost uh something like that. So I would support that as a solution and I see yes ma question I have a question um chair mloud um so when you say that the roof pitch uh should be you know should be lowered to match the existing pitch do you mean the the pitch so that the the it looks the same height from the front as the existing roof or do you mean the slope from the south elevation cuz that's that's these are actually

very close. The thing is that this is longer so it looks more massive I guess but uh well they should tell us what the slope is for each one. I mean it's let me pull up the I mean the slope on the upper roof looks shallower than the slope on the the smaller gable by the chimney there. Right. Okay. So the exa the proposed slope uh the second story is let me see 3 3 to 12 I'm sorry I think the architect maybe the architect can Oh he's uh he has raised his hand tell let's the architect what the slopes are. See you. I like to see this one. Okay. Um, so we actually did have exactly kind of what you had mentioned, which was kind of a steeper slope. Um, the the ridge stayed where it is and then the eaves came down before, but we were asked to make it a little bit shallower, which is why we didn't want to lose that room in the center of the ridge. Um the the front roof that you're uh um you're asking about with the clay tiles, that's about a 4 and 12 pitch. And um the current uh the way that the upper level is drawn is that a 3 and 12 pitch because we were asked to make it shallower. Asked in uh I'm sorry, in consultation with staff. Um sis, I have a a comment. Um so on sheet A3.1 which shows the proposed exterior elevation in the north the pitch reads as 312 and whereas on the next right but

the next sheet 832 uh shows it as 412. So I think that notation just didn't get changed because we had changed it to 4 and 12 before but then uh we were asked to make it 3 and 12. I think it's actually drawn at 3 and 12. The notation just didn't get changed. It's 312. Yeah. Okay. So, sheet A because um Yeah, cuz I think you had um you were looking at the existing in the back before um and you had said that that roof um the existing roof uh of the um uh on the back of the house was like a 2 and a half and 12 and you asked us to try to get as close to that as possible. Right. Right. Right. Right. I just wanted to confirm if it was uh it was 312 or 412. Um let me just finish please. So the information on those sheets doesn't match. So I just wanted to confirm since I have you on the line. That's all. Well, can I ask the applicant a question? I mean the 4 and 12 pitch could work still for your storage space, correct? Yes. Yeah, because we're we're mainly worried about or hoping to get that height in the at the ridge, which is right now like about a little bit less than five feet. But if the if the gable dropped a little bit, it wouldn't impinge a whole lot on the storage space. Uh if the eaves at the uh at the lower end dropped a little bit, it would not impinge a lot. Okay. Well, all right. Okay, that helps a bit, I think. Oh, and then one other thing is just just so everybody understands this is set back quite a bit from the front. Um, and if you had um stopped by to to kind of take a look at the story polls that were up. Um, you could kind of see that the the angle from the street is very

different than what you're looking at straight, you know, uh, smack on the paper, too. You're kind of looking up at it. Yeah, we understand how we deal with this every meeting. So, we get it. Okay. All right. Um, and then would you have any problem with raising the windows up in the wall? I mean, up higher towards the top of the room. Um, I think they're already at 7 ft of a for a head height. Um, I could raise them up at at some point though. Uh for some of the egress windows, the bottom of the windows have to be within 44 in of the floor, right? We would we would then just be kind of making the windows taller in either make a taller window. Okay. All right. I I think that answers our my questions. Um so let's go back to we're going to go back to commissioner discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Cecil. Um, well, I'd be happy to just say we changed the roof pitch to 4 and 12 at the second story edition and raise the windows up um where feasible or actually raise the windows up a bit and if you need to make them taller for egress, make them taller. Maybe just sort of an pivot on that for the windows. Would you just be open to having them be a little larger maybe rather than raising them up? Because I to me it's a little bit more of like the proportion relative to the windows at the front, right? They seem like really and especially since they're set back so far, they're going to feel very sort of atypical. So maybe just making them larger and then giving the architect a little flexibility of how they get sighted in the wall, but they just will have like it'll be a greater ratio of glazing. Could I just u mention that the current slope is proposed slope is 3 and

12. So you're wanting a steeper slope. Yes. Four and 12. That would be my be more consistent with the front gable. The ridge height is fine. And it would just lower the front wall a little bit. Yeah. Height of the front wall and rear wall. So keep the overall height just pop it down. I guess the current ridge height is fine. And then it just pivots down from there. You know, about a foot maybe. Uh I think that would help just visually. And then I'm fine with either making the windows bigger or raising them up or in a way both. Both could happen. But well, that I'm I'm happy to make a motion then to approve the project as proposed with uh a change to the additions uh roof pitch, maintaining the um ridge line, but dropping it down to a 4 and 12 uh slope and increasing the size of the four street facing windows on the addition to make those windows larger, increase the glazing. And did you want to add treatment on the gable end or no? Um I I It's up to the person making the motion. May maybe I will say encourage the applicant but not require to consider uh incorporating some clay tile uh detailing along the um e line. That's my motion. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second that motion. Okay. And let's vote. Uh Commissioner Wadi I. Commissioner Pearson. Yes. And I vote yes as well. So that project is approved three to zero. If there are there are story polls, so please leave them up. There's a 14-day appeal period at which point they can come down once that's completed. Uh so that item planning application PA25-012633 Carmemell Avenue has been approved.

Uh, we'll move on to item 5-2, planning application PA25-021820 Key Routt Boulevard, use permit and design review request to demolish an existing rear deck and construct a first for first story rear edition. We have a presentation by staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so hello again, commissioners and members of the public. My name is Mera Han, associate planner with the city. I'm here to present use permit and design review application PA25-012 at 820 Koutroe Boulevard. So, as you can see here, the subject lot is located on the west side of Koute Boulevard between Washington Avenue to the north and Solano Street to the west and abuts the Aloney bike trail and bar tracks to the rear west. I'm sorry, Solano Street to the south. The lot is developed with an approximately um 1,093 foot three-bedroom, one-b single family home constructed in 1925. So, you can see here uh the photo from the front and the and also from the rear. And I should give a little bit more context. Uh the the property suffered some damage uh following a fire very recently. So, part of the scope of work uh entails repairing some of those structures. um the fire damaged uh structures. All right. So um I included here a little bit of the F diagram just to illustrate. So you can see in the light blue shaded area uh that's the um that's the area of the addition. It's a first story addition. Um but it also includes um an the area of an unpermitted 67.3 foot laundry room. So that's the dark darker blue area. So, they're demolishing that

and kind of like rebuilding it uh incorporating it into the addition um which is located at the right and rear um northwest of the residence. The existing home has a nonconforming 2 foot one two foot one inch right north side yard setback which is uh shown here in the red circle. And let me get my little laser here. All right. Um where a minimum of 3 ft is required as added context. So I already had said that that it suffered uh some fire related damage recently. Uh the proposed project uh includes demolishing the fire damaged rear deck and unpermitted laundry room as I said to construct a 314 square foot 16t 5 in tall singlestory rear edition and a smaller 115 square foot lower level deck with stairs at the rear and right southwest right of the house. So that's the new deck. So it's going to be smaller than the one that it's replacing. The scope of work includes other interior and exterior changes and repairs and a use permit is required to horizontally extend the existing non-conforming 2 uh foot 1 in right north side yard setback. Um so the proposed addition retains the front facade and the existing height which is 20 around 217 in at the front like you can see here and 16 feet and 5 in at the rear you can see here uh and extend extends the singlestory home towards the rear. The plans feature a roof pitch design elements colors and materials to match visually enhance and complement the existing residence. The project would result in a 1340 uh square foot one-story four-bedroom

and oneb residence. Proposed materials and colors include warm gray and off-white stuckco walls, charcoal asphalt composition shingle roof, white windows to match. So, uh the project is under 045 F and does not qualify ex exceptional design. Um so the pro the the the applicant reached out to staff and because of financial considerations as well um they are proposing fiberglass windows from the for the windows that are visible from the street. However, for the rest of them they would be vinyl. Um what else? The um and the applicant paint plans to repaint the whole house as part of uh the repairs and the whole project. So, the proposed project will be in scale with nearby residences along Key Root Boulevard, and potential privacy concerns are minimized as most of the new windows on the left south face uh a neighboring house stuckle wall with glass block windows. The rear windows are at a considerable distance from the rear property line and no windows are proposed on the right north side. So, um, staff has not received any questions or comments regarding this project proposal. And, uh, yeah, with that, staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission review and approve the proposed project subject to the findings and standard conditions of approval. Okay. Thank you. Uh, are there any questions for staff? I have none. Any questions for applicant? I have none. Uh, let's move to public comment. Is there anyone online who would wish to speak on this item? Please use the raise a hand icon if you'd like to speak on the item. No. Okay, we'll close public comment,

move on to commissioner discussion. I think the project's just fine the way it is. So, if there's a motion, unless there's discussion, I'm I'm happy to just jump in and keep it official. Happy to make a motion to um approve the project as proposed and I'll second it. Okay. Commissioner Pearson. Yes. Commissioner Wadi? Yes. And I vote yes as well. So that item has been approved three to zero. Uh there are no story polls up. Correct. It's just single story. So there is a 14-day appeal period uh to keep in mind. Uh moving on to item six, presentations. Staff, any presentations? No presentations. Seven. Item seven. Any announcements? Um, I was pleased to read about uh Commissioner Wadi in the news. That's very exciting. And congratulations on your new duties. I guess that sounds fun. Um, so that was nice to read. So, thank you. That's the only announcement I have. Okay. Um, well then we'll call this meeting adjourned. Correct. And just a reminder, July 9th, we will not be having a meeting. We wouldn't have a quorum anyway, but um so uh our next meeting is scheduled for July 23rd. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. And good evening everyone.