Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

caffeine powder in our water to keep us coffee before I come back out here. If you go, don't come back empty-handed. Okay. Are we ready? You You need a few minutes,

Anna. Good luck. Everybody good to go? Okay, I will call the regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Want to welcome all of you here today. Uh, roll call, please. Commissioner Albourne here. Commissioner Lock here. And Chair Le Page

here. As you see, there's a couple of plan commissioners are not here today. Okay. Um, first item on the agenda are the public appearances. Uh, members of the public may address the planning commission on any matters of municipal concern which are not on our agenda tonight. I want to remind you that comments are governed by the Brown Act. So, at this time, I'd like to invite any member of the public to come up and make any comments uh regarding municipal concern, which are not on our agenda tonight. Anybody here in the chamber want to come up? Any hands up online? No, sir.

Okay, we'll move on to the um if we have any announcements, so we'll move to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and do not require uh discussion or independent action, but members of the commission of the public may request that an item be pulled for questions or further discussion. Um otherwise, uh the items will be handled in one motion. So tonight we have two items on the consent agenda. The monthly uh activity report from the planning building department and we have our regular meetings minutes from April 8th. So does anybody have any questions? Uh Commissioner Alurn, you have a question.

Um yes, sir. Could I please pull both items? You want to pull the minutes? Uh yes, please. Okay. The activity report and the minutes. You want you want both of them? Yes, please. All right. So we're good. All right. In that case, we will u discuss the activity report first.

Perfect. Thank you, sir. Um, and this was a question, I think, for director Janette. The activity report, it shows for April that we had 42 uh planning applications filed and 11 of them were incomplete. So, that's a pretty that's a percentage of about 26%. Um I'm wondering if there's any steps that we could be taking to uh reduce the incomplete submissions. I know there must be several reasons why an application is incomplete. Sure. So to the chair um typical reasons are sometimes the applications aren't filled out um in their entirety or fees have not been paid. Um, often times we'll get a request and plans are not attached, but the applicant will reach out and, you know, let Shelby know or let the office know that plans are forthcoming. So, they'll sit um and complete. Um, there's always room for improvement in process. Um, but to tackle those specific items, it's more of um guiding the applicant and educating them early on. Um, it that happen that's much more useful when it's a a one time off. Like I have a house, this is the only house I'm going to work on and this is the only project I'm going to do. But when we have um repeat customers, I think really helping them focus on, you know, these are our checklists, all of these need to be submitted in order it for it to be for an application to be deemed complete so we can process it. Well, I know you have extensive checklists that are extremely helpful. Um, and I and you do pre-application assistance and interviews and and all that. I know you encourage that. I was just curious because it just seems 25% seems

kind of significant, you know, both for your department and for the applicants, right? So, thank you for that. Um, I also had another um

another question and I don't know if you have the answer to this this month, but I think it might be helpful. Um given that we're in the middle of our H6 cycle, if we if we had some indication of how many um of the planning applications have a potential impact on Arena or maybe even considering adding Arena status update table to our monthly activity report. Do any of those do you have any comments on either of those points? Yes, I think we what we could do is we could take um and um I can work with Shelby because she will be the expert. Um perhaps working on this table and just adding a column

where we could check a box whether this could apply to Arena number or not. Oh, I think that'd be really helpful. So, thank you. Those are all my comments for the monthly activity report. Okay. And um did you have any questions about the minutes? There was one uh very small um section in the minutes where Commissioner Lockach moved and seconded her own motion. I didn't do that. Uh DS25019 efficient. Otherwise, uh excellent minutes as always, Miss Gorman. So that's it, Chair.

Okay. In that case, I'm going to make a motion that we accept uh items one and two as presented on the consent agenda with the correction. With the correction with another correction and the suggestions. All right. Roll call, please. Second. Commissioner Alboard. Yes. Commissioner Lock. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Motion's passed. Okay. That brings us to the orders of business. We have uh two items on the order of business tonight. And first, we are going to receive an update on the work plan for the residential design guidelines. That's going to be presented by the project manager, Tom Ford. Thank you, Tom. Thank you very much, sir.

Well, good afternoon, commissioners, uh public. My name is Tom Ford. Um given a brief update on uh our process of of finishing these residential design guidelines. Know you all have a a packed meeting. U this will be under five minutes. Um some background. Let me see if I can turn.

Are you able to advance them?

If you can. Yeah, if you could if you don't mind.

Uh just a brief background. You know, we we we our production team's goal is to present the completed document to council on September 1st. Our method is four one-month work cycles beginning last month. Next slide, please. Uh we also went to council earlier this month and got some excellent feedback. They had extremely specific feedback. It was in the staff report. It's up on the screen. I won't go through each one of them, but that that was very helpful. Also had our second production team meeting. It was last Wednesday. uh where we reviewed tasks that we worked on from April went over which what progress was made the extent to the extent that progress was made um which we'll see on on subsequent slides and we reviewed our team's approach for editing the document itself uh to see if we're doing it in the most efficient way. So the first outcome of those discussions was what you see on the left side of your screen. Uh essentially a hybrid working model as an update to our approach. So our approach already consisted of small groups of one two or two to three people working on very specified tasks. Um but we'll now also have uh a relatively small group of four to six people um that will review the exact wording of the document and deciding which language to accept and which language to reject. that came out of uh a meeting that we had with a dozen people. It it it's it's challenging to to accept exact wording between a dozen people. So, we're trying this model. We think this hybrid model will um uh be a be a good approach um to try in this second the second cycle. Um bit of information on the architectural outreach. We're getting some good feedback, some lengthy feedback. Um, Anna Janette, our our director, had um uh come up with a a model for a red line matrix. It was actually fairly similar to what Commissioner Albborne had had done when she was comparing different versions of

the document. Um, so we're going to be speaking with the uh with a representative of the coastal commission and to get some feedback on on that. So that'll have some more substantive update on that uh next month. Next slide, please. Uh want to draw your attention to the right side of the screen for the new information. This is regarding fire the fire resiliency. Um we had some extensive some great research that was done and distributed to our production team. Um next up is uh is uh to schedule a meeting with our wildfire preparedness committee of which Jay Leage is is on as well. Um and and then the then the last piece of that is that we are going to be uh uh collaborating with um primarily uh Jeral Li and and Justin NO experts in their respective fields with uh the building code and building materials and with uh uh PRC 4291 dispensable defensible st space requirements um and landscaping items. Next slide please. So many of the proposed edits during the first cycle, so the so last month, um many of those proposed edits came from staff who did a a wholesale, you know, review of the uh of the document and their attempt was to address specifically what the planning commission had requested. We made a checklist of exactly what was said by each planning commissioner. Um Jacob did a great job at at at that. Um and our attempt was to implement those recommendations into the document. Um and some of those recommendations were were very straightforward which we'll see on the next couple of screens. Um here's one regarding flat roofs and if you could go to the next slide.

Uh rooftop decks and I just and if you could move to the next slide please. um and uh grills, hot tubs, and broadly termed entertainment facilities is is what was proposed. So, um uh you know, we of course would welcome any feedback on on on that exact wording, but we had put this in the staff report in case you would want want to refer to that, but we're happy to hear uh feedback on that as well. uh other recommendations that council and the planning commission directed us to implement such as make language less subjective uh those those efforts did end up with a lot of differing opinions within our production team. Um that's where that where uh you know the specific wording of the document comes into play. So we're still working on a resolution of that. I had said, you know, hence the the uh adaptation of our editing model to now include a four to six person group uh editing model alongside our model where we identify specific tasks for specific people to work on. Next slide, please. This would have been a prettier uh uh explanation. It's it's it's the same information. Perhaps I should have gone over this one. Um we can go to the next slide. Um, that's that's what we've got. Uh, happy to hear any feedback if you if you have any or any questions.

Any questions for Tom? Okay. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, sir. Thank you, folks.

Okay. Uh, next item that orders B business is considered design for the replacement of scenic pathway signage. Um chair. I'm going to switch chairs really quick. So, um I just want to begin with a short introduction. I'm Anna Janette with Community Planning and Building. Um and Miss Shirley Moon, she's actually here to do the presentation for the um for the sign um design concept for you to consider today. So, Miss Moon, if you'd like to come up and introduce yourself and let me know when you'd like me to start your video.

Good. Yep. Thank you. So before I get into uh the exact sign design that we've proposing for your consideration here, I wanted to touch on a socioeconomic study that was done by integral consulting and EMC planning and they've um determined in their studies uh through a survey and also analyzing cell phone data that the uh Carmel Beach and Scenic Pathway have a recreational value of 36.7 million. They measured 1,150,000 people visiting in a year and 431,000 of those people were on the pathway. So it's a significant um traffic pattern that they've identified and they've also identified the economic impact back to the city. The reason that I bring this up is because David Rall who was one of the engineers said that maintaining the quality and unique feel is really important part of maintaining the economy here. And I think we all know that intuitively but he really emphasized that. And so when you look at the existing signage on the pathway, you will see that it does not offer a quality uh product, nor does it add to the unique feel of scenic pathway. And we want to change that.

Here's uh what our pathway signage looks like now. So without the proper signage, desired behavior is not supported. And it's not fair to expect the visitors to know our rules if they aren't posted properly or posted at all. So, how did we develop the science we're proposing? We went to the original plans of 198788. And those plans actually have specifications forformational signage. And they're 8 by8 redwood posts. They're 40 in tall. They're placed not on the pathway, but tucked close to the pathway. And uh we reviewed the local coastal plan, the shoreline management plan, and just other general guidance for good signage. We also hired a graphic designer who could help pull our ideas into a format that was acceptable.

We're calling this phase one of our signage project because we realize that there are several levels here, but this is just our first effort. Go ahead. Whoops. Back one. We started with this uh sign which is right here. So you can see a a more true uh color and we did that three years ago. And it's interesting that they have held up so well. They do have a 10-year warranty. It's a very uh compressed laminate material. um and we can do any kind of um signage we want with this company. So we started with that and decided that that would be a good basis for a family of signs so that there isn't the uh chaos of signs that you just saw. Go ahead. And that also is a a Photoshop of our little prototype here. Uh, and it's chunkier than it really is. You can see that it's not quite to scale, but we wanted to put it photoshop it into the setting so that we could get an idea of what it would feel like in the and the scale of that um, setting. Okay, go ahead. And this is our uh graphic designer and he's talking about

how we reduce the visual pollution and it's just more harmonious with a family of signs than to have different colors. We've identified 12 locations that we feel would be appropriate. Uh the original plans called for 11 posts. So we're very close to matching and 10 of the 12 locations are already uh places where posts exist. So we only have two new places. Go ahead. There are variety of signs in addition to this post, but they all have that same green background, the same font. Everything is coordinated. Go ahead. We have one standalone uh recycling cart uh directional sign because we created this step up so the people could reach the recycling cart and failed to put a sign up to let people know it was there. Uh the scenic pathway is part of the Carmel Coastal Trail. So, we intend to put that on the top of our posts. Okay. So, in reviewing the signage, we feel like it's very consistent with the character of Carmel. We're using the reclaimed redwood posts to match the new landscape barriers. Uh, it's visible to the public without being intrusive. It's restrained and simple. High contrast for readability. Consistent in color design and materials. Reduces sign pollution and clutter by

condensing signage on one post. It's easy to view while walking north or south on the pathway. Provides information clearly and concisely. We've used icons whenever possible. And it's really secondary to the setting. Our idea was to uh inform people and have the signs inform on uh quietly. Basically, I'm available for questions, comments. You have some questions. Go ahead. I have a few questions. Go ahead. Thank you, Miss Moon.

Um was this was brought before the Forest and Beach Commission, was it not? on November 13th and their feedback was they voted unanimously to accept our signage. At that point, we thought we were going to be able to go ahead and install. Ah, but then you come and see us. But you're the final stop. Thank you. So, a couple questions, Shirley. Um, so are the is the same signage on each of the four sides or No. What happens? What do we have there?

Yeah. Uh go if you're if you're on the pathway and just walking past, you will have this side because it shows um distance to the restrooms. So this this would be facing perpendicular to the people on the path. That's it. the logic. This is the This is if they approach from south uh and if they approach from the north, either way, they can read the same signs. Okay. And and the the material that the actual sign is made out of is that sample you showed us. Yes, it's right here.

We probably won't do this thickness. Did you Did you get any feedback about the durability of this? because one of the things I noticed from your photograph is that those signs really looked awful, the ones that are there. And obviously that's a really corrosive environment down there. So, I just wondered if you had any uh feedback about how you how well you thought this

Well, I did talk to the um manufacturer about that and said that we have this brutal climate and they guaranteed it for 10 years at least for no fading and no chipping and so forth. And at some point I was quite concerned about graffiti as well. And it comes off. I mean it we clean them every week. Uh but the one that we installed three years ago looks very good. It's slightly faded but not much.

Okay. And then and then the design was was actually uh the reference to the 8 by8 post was from a a study or that they did in was in the 80s you said 87. Yeah. Yeah. 8788. This is from the plan. Now, they had a little different design because they only had the access sign in there. And then over the years, people have slapped on other signage, but some of some of those got put up. All of them. Oh, those are all up. Yeah. I mean, this was the original. Right. Okay. Uh but there's other signs that were different locations there from your, you know, Exactly. They got put all our place. Yeah. Right.

Mhm. And the only other thing I couldn't show was um our goal is to recess the signs. So they'll have a little bit of a they'll be routed out. So it'll have a little uh custom detail there where it'll sit back and have a little maybe a quarter inch reveal and then we'll hand sand those edges so it's soft. Very nice. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh this time I'll open it up to members of the public if they'd like to make any comments regarding the uh proposed signage.

Think Gail's making her way up here. So nice to be here. Nice to see you, Gail.

Thank you. Um, I want to commend your project because, um, I'm a daily walker on that trail and I just love the fact that we're going to have some organization there. Um, you know, the existing signage is just really sad. And um I I was noticing it the other day, you know, how the differentiation from one to the other, there's absolutely no continuity. So I'm really pleased that this is going to happen. Thank you. Thank you. Karen, come on up.

Hi Karen Fledo. You know, I was on Forest Beach for a long time and uh this has been such a delight to see someone take the initiative to get this done. The signs we have now are embarrassing. They're broken. They're just not up to our standards. And I think this will be a great improvement. It will also help when you have to bring ethics into some people who are not behaving. if you have something to just sort of remind them that they need to leash up their dog or pick up or uh do whatever it is that they're not doing or if they're smoking and so on. So, yes, I think this should go forward uh as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Karen. Okay. Anyone else in the public like to make any comments? Any hands up online, Shelby? Yes, sir. Okay, I'm going to close the public comments open to the commissioners. Commissioner Lock.

Sure, I'll go. Um, I think it's a fantastic project and um I also was down there this weekend um and noticed that the the signage is woefully mismatched, broken, does not look good. It does not reflect our um guidelines. I think this is well thought out. Um it's a clean, fresh, simple um look and it's really needed at this time. And I also appreciate the forest green color. I think that's uh obviously it fits in with with our area and the top uh piece which identifies it as a coastal trail is great. So I fully support this

and Commissioner Albert. I second everything Commissioner Lockach said and want to express my um debt of gratitude to you um Shirley Moon for all of the time and the effort and the investment um and the stick tuitiveness you've given to this project. Um so thank you. I I support it. I I entrust that you will keep the signage to a minimum yet keep it functional. And I'd like to uphold the forest and beach uh approval of your project. Yes, it's um I've been involved in a few of these signage discussions over the years and this is really a very wellthoughtout presentation. I also like the uh consistency, the placement regularly along there. I think that that that helps with the educational quality of it. People uh they recognize it. They start to interact with it in a certain way and even if they don't look at the first one, if they see another one, there's there's repetition that goes along. So, I think there's, you know, that's what we're really trying to do is educate these visitors. As as was pointed out, we have a lot of visitors that go to that beach and it gets a lot of use. So, it's really important that we have some way to um just make the visitors aware of those things they need to be aware of when they when they're down there so that they they don't have uh you know, really severe impacts to to the beach. So, I really commend uh the effort on this. I think these the signs look great. really impressed by little details that you're going to put in there. So, uh, we don't have a resolution on this, right? We're just we're just giving a recommendation to support. Yeah. So, I think I think we have a a thumbs up all of us. We're just going to give the old thumbs up here for this. Okay.

All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. I think that deals with the orders of business. So, we're coming to public hearings now. Before we start the public hearings, uh I wanted to give the director a moment. She has um uh come up that we have a new design on our resolutions and um I think it's it's it's a good improvement, but I just want to give the director a moment to explain it to the commissioners and to the public at large and the applicants.

Thank you. Um so yes, the the resolution template has been reformatted. Um and really the goal was to ensure that the record once approved or a a project is denied that record lives on and all of the pertinent information is attached to that record. So the resolution now clearly states what the findings are um and includes supportive evidence um instead of referring back to a narrative in the staff report where the staff report it does not live on like the resolution does. You would have to do a public records request or you would have to search and find it. Um so puts it on in one place. the conditions are attached as well as the plans that are that are approved. Um there's also difficulty in the past where you know a staff report or a resolution will refer to the attached plans and then based on version control you don't know which plans those are. So this puts it nice in a nice little package. resolution is a lot longer than um previous, but then the staff report is a bit shorter where the public decision makers can really focus on the staff report of what is it where it where is it at? Um what is required and if there are any issues, we could just really focus on those things and then the resolution will tee up your decision for you hopefully. Okay. Any questions for the director? All right. Okay. Uh, brings us to the public hearings. Before we start the public hearings, I just want to kind of explain the rules of the road. Um, applicants are allowed 5 minutes to make their initial presentation. If for some reason the

applicant feels like they need more time than that, just uh requested at the beginning of your presentation. Um the members of the public will have three minutes to make their comments and if questions come up during the uh course of the comments uh the applicant will be allowed to come back up and answer any of those questions. So having said that the first item on the public hearings is uh a coastal develop permit. It's 16155. It's the Mission Trails Nature Preserve is consideration of a 5-year extension of the coastal development permit. Can we have a staff report, please?

Um, yes. At this time, I'd like to invite um Miss Mary Bilsy up to the podium. Although the staff report um says it was prepared by me. Um she takes all the credit. She is the author of the report.

Thank you, chair, and members of the planning commission. Um we'll get the PowerPoint presentation up. It's just a brief uh presentation on the Mission Trail Nature Preserve um coastal development permit uh renewal. Next, for a background, the Mission Trail Nature Preserve was established as a parkland back in 1979 by the city council. It's designated as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Um, and we have a master plan that was adopted for it in 1996 and it was incorporated into the city's local coastal program in 2004. There was a baseline biological assessment that was prepared in 2016 by Nikki Ned off. And um currently we have a 5-year CDP that was approved by the planning commission in 2016 and we extended it for 5 years um that in 2021 and so it is coming up for extension now again in 2026. Um and it's the ex the CDP is um the maintenance is regular maintenance such as road clearance, hazardous tree removal, mowing and trail maintenance as well as um implementation of the habitat restoration actions that are in the baseline biological assessment. Significant progress has been made in this last um five years. We've been working with the Friends of Mission Trail Nature Preserve. They do, as as you likely know, the majority of the work that's done in the nature preserve. Um some of the things that have happened um over this past 5 years has been invasive tree removals, Janice removals,

um bush ivy, fire fuel uh removal. There's been trail maintenance, installation of stairways, u signage benches and overlooks and as well as um trash can containers and benches um that have been um installed on the site. Uh we continue to um mow Martins's Meadows because of the special status Hickman's onion that's at the meadows. And so usually by the time um we work with the biologist to say, "Okay, now's the time to do it." And um we try to do it before the 4th of July typically because of um issues with with uh potential fire issues near the 4th of July. Okay. Next. And there was a stream stability study that was prepared. Um we have completed projects one through three of that stream stability study and we have um the beginning fundings of projects four, five and six that's been um currently in the process of getting engineering designs and we're moving forward with that. Um, I just want to note that the numbers that are in this were the original numbers that were in that um that study and those are are old numbers and so the cost is actually much different from what's shown up in that um slide. Next. So staff is re recommending a 5-year extension of the CDP um to continue to uh progress on the vegetation removal as well as implement um the stream stability study and um annual maintenance activities for the mowing of

the grasslands as well as the fire um fuel reduction areas. So, I'm available to answer any questions if you have any at this time. Questions? I don't think so. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'd like to invite members of the public to come up and make any comments they'd like to make.

Well, I am delighted to see this. I am the president of Friends of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and we have a great public private partnership with the city and we are delighted uh that Mary and the staff has taken this on to renew this CDP because this is the only way we can continue to do the work we do. So I know I've been sort of bugging them for the last two years to make sure we got it done in time so that it didn't run out. But Mission Trail uh Nature Preserve, we're going to have a little celebration on June 20th. If you're around at 11 o'clock near the Redwood Grove, we're going to celebrate 50 plus years of the preserve. We're going to have some cookies and a couple walks and we would be delighted to see you there. We spent this weekend spreading chips in the Redwood Grove. There's a little preschool that meets there four or five days a week. and uh we just do lots of work. We've planted lots of native plants and worked with the city and uh it's just a terrific program. So, please support the extension of this uh very important coastal development permit. Thank you.

Thank you, Karen. Okay. Any other members of the public?

Commissioner, members of the commission. My name is Joe Narvas. I was born and raised in Carmemell and my family still has a house at the east end of 11th Avenue at the Mish Trail Park neighbors with Karen. Hi Karen. And um the parks hasn't looked so good in a long time. It looks great. The work they've done has been fantastic. I would highly recommend uh approval of the extension of the coastal development permit and uh Janest and and other invasives were pretty thick there and they've done a good job there. But I'm impressed by the 30 foot tall acacia trees and the eucalyptus trees that have been removed. horribly invasive trees and that's hard work and I'm impressed by that. So, I enjoy Mist Trail Park now more than ever. So, I uh highly recommend approval and uh thank you.

Thank you. Uh anyone else from the public like to make any comments? Okay. I don't see any chamber. Any hands up online, Shelby? No, sir. Okay. I'll close the public comments, open it up to commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Alburn, do you have any comments? Uh, yes. Thank you, Chair. Um, I uh most certainly support the extension of the uh coastal development permit, but I would like to raise one um of the conditions of approval for discussion. Um it's on I have it on page 68 in the full packet. Uh it's inside in the in the resolution.

It's in the resolution exhibit A and A. Exhibit A, exhibit A, conditions of approval, special conditions number five. And it reads, uh, for each year of the permit, the city shall maintain a list of specific activities carried out under this permit. And by June 30th of each year, provide a year-end summary of such activities to the community planning and building director for distribution to and presentation before the planning commission. And um what I'd like to bring up for discussion is perhaps that particular condition should have the reporting done to the Forest and Beach Commission.

Is that is that in the uh resolution? Do you see it? It's in the special conditions at the time because I I believe the report out is all is already done to Forest and Beach right here each year and Miss Billsy may be able to speak to this a little bit. I'm just wondering which makes more sense if we're going to put in it's under two. Sure. I think I see it under exhibit A condition of approval um five. Am I looking at the right? I might have the wrong resolution up here.

Yeah. Is this not the right one? Scroll down. It's fine. Yeah, it's past the findings. Okay, here we are. Here we are. I'm sorry. Thank you for that help.

And and just to clarify, um there was a presentation made by the Friends of Mission Trail Nature Preserve to the Forest and Beach Commission in February of 2025. That was a comprehensive um list and extensive slideshow of all of the work that had been done. And um I believe it's on the website. If it isn't, I can place it on the website and I'm also happy to um provide it to uh the director and so that she can pass it around to to the planning commission. Um the the true reason for my uh comment is to put this as a condition of approval for the next five years. Does that make sense to be reporting out to the planning commission or does it make more sense to be reporting out to Forest and Beach? Yeah, it was well received by the forest and beach commission if that's something that you know you want to consider.

Well, we could just add a clause in there that go goes additionally to the forest and beach. I mean typically typically these reports do go to forest to be and they come to the planning commission for final approval. Yeah. Yeah. But if you want to add the language there I think anybody have any objections to that? Um, I would like to suggest, um, not having a June 30th due by date. Um, depending on the type of work that's going on a certain year, um, we might want to capture something in the fall. Um, that's planned for work. Um, so, so you're proposing to change the date? Um, we could just an annual report.

Just have an annual just not put the June 30th. Just have an annual report. Okay. And then chair, are you suggesting adding in to forest and beach and then planning commission? Yeah. So it would uh the language would be um uh carried out under the permit and provide an annual year in summary such the activities community planning building director for distribution presentation to forest and beach and the planning commission. Yep. By the you want to leave in July or August meeting? I will just I would Yeah, just to remove it. Leave that out.

Yeah, just annually. Okay. All right. Are we clear on that language? Yes, sir. All right. Did you Did you have some additional comments, Commissioner? I don't have any additional comments, but I would make a motion that we move approval of the five-year extension of the CDP um for the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Okay. With the uh with the amendment with the amendments to change the language of special edition number five. Yeah. Okay. I'll second that. All right. Um any more discussion? I assume not. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alborn? Yes. Commissioner Law? Yes. And Charlie Page?

Yes. Thank you. Motion is carried. Okay, that brings us to item number six on the public hearings. This is a design study. This is DS24046, the Teresi uh project. This is being recommended for uh continuation by the uh staff and I believe the reason was that the applicant was doing some redesign. That is that the case

correct? um staff was working with the applicant and initially when um the project was noticed um the intent was to incorporate conditions of approval to achieve consistency. Um however there certain things that should be ironed out prior to um um approval. It's approval of the concept, right? No, it's final. Just kidding. Um but Mr. report can speak much more eloquently to this project than I can.

There there were just a few too many conditions um that would lead to a potential um ambiguous project being approved. So rather than not having a a fully flushed out project, working with the applicant, we agreed that it would be better to just continue the the item to resolve those unresolved issues rather than addressing them through conditions of approval.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, are there any members of the public that have any comments about just the the uh uh continuation, not the actual application? Okay, seeing none, um, any comments from the commissioners on it? All right, I'll make a motion that we continue this item. Is it is to a date uncertain? Okay, to a date uncertain. I'll second that motion. Okay, roll call, please. Commissioner Alboard, yes. Commissioner Law, yes. and chair Le Page.

Yes. Motion is carried to continue. Okay. That brings us to uh item number seven of the public hearing, which is a design study DS25393. This is the Mitchi Mc Levvis project's consideration of combined concept and final design study for minor addition to the lower floor. substantial alterations on the exterior of an existing single family residence. Have staff report, please. Okay, I was just trying to find my mouse. Okay. Uh, tonight I'm presenting um the project at Mountain View Avenue, 3 northwest of 8th Avenue. This is a combined concept and final design study, 25393. The project is a slightly larger lot at 5,980 ft and it consists of a substantial alteration. Uh there's new exterior cladding in a different design and colorway, new windows and doors um in an altered finishedation pattern, alteration of a roof form and the replacement of a peaked parapit with a flattened parapit. This project sits on two fronts. While the alteration will be visible from both fronts, the main access of the property is on 8th Avenue and the bulk of the visual impact will be seen from that 8th Street front. Here we have both the we have the north elevation. This is the Mountain View front. You can see there's very few visual impacts here. Uh you can see a

difference in the cladding beyond the stoneclad portion which will remain. Um, and this is the view from 8th Street, uh, what we see currently. And then this shows the combination of the additional stone veneer, which should closely match, uh, the original stone at the north end, and the board and batten and stucco sighting that would replace the woodshake. There are new doors and windows. Um, the altered fenistration pattern. The deck rail is changing. Um and then it will coordinate with that new Juliet balcony at that front window. The garage door is proposing to be uh replaced with a window as that garage will be converted to an ADU. Again the south elevation uh this is another view good view to show that parapit change. There is no total change to the ridge height as that is roughly a flat roof. This is the west elevation showing the continuation of that stone veneer to properly wrap an entire building form. And then the side view of the parapit. You can see there that change and some of the alterations of the the windows. There's a couple of new ones and some that are staying. The east elevation shows more new windows, uh, the removal of an exterior door, and the changes to the deck rail material. And this is the proposed 84 square foot increase. It's on the lower level of the building. Um, it's less than 2% of the total volume maximum allowed for the site. So, they did not have to do a volume study. There's no visual impact

from the increased square footage. Um so no impact on mass and bulk perceived. This expansion is going to be achieved through a combination of reconfiguring floor framing of the upper floor and some excavation of the crawl space. The site is non-conforming regarding site coverage and for any increase in floor area reduction of site coverage must be made at a rate of 2 to one and for the 84 square ft being added they are proposing to remove roughly 187 square ft which is more than the minimum requirement and that's what's highlighted there the proposed removing. As for forest character, you have a general layout idea here of the trees on site. There's seven. Um the city forester said that they met density and there are no proposals to remove trees or change any of the landscaping outside of site coverage. Final details here uh shows the cladding that's proposed. The increased stone veneer uh properly wrapping entire forms board and batten and the stucco sighting would be painted in the same color. All doors and windows would be finished in a paint similar to the current color of the windows that are already there. The paint colors and additional stone veneer are coordinated with the existing caramel stone. The existing exterior lights are being reused by having a permanent black film placed on the interior of the glass to comply with the requirement for shielded and um downward lighting. And all of the landscape lighting also meets our lumen and spacing requirements. This is our window schedule. the type of windows as matching the existing ones

and they will be painted that dragon's breath paint. There are no changes to the privacy and views as there's no expansion of decks or um any windows that are being placed are low enough to be obscured by existing fencing. Staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQL review and approve the concept and final design and ready for questions. Any questions for staff? Question.

Yes, please. Um the the blank wall that we see on sheet A10. Um, I believe when we were when we were on site, I believe I asked about the landscaping and that it was going to remain and I believe that the rendering shows a rather large blank wall facing the public rightway in the street. Um, but when we were on site, there was landscaping that was shielding that blank wall.

Are you are you speaking to the garage? It would be it would be uh to this not the not the garage door but the the recessed wall against the house. Oh. Um let me see if we can see it in the so right south south elevation there. Um you mean underneath the Juliet balcony? Yes. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong version of it. This one. Yes. I had them both up. Um but I believe the rendering simply isn't showing the landscaping that is going to be there. Would that be a correct assumption? Showing the hardscaping. There's no proposal to change the landscaping.

Okay. So, that answers my my first question. My second about the the roof deck and the um and privacy. We have not received any correspondence with the concern for privacy from the roof deck. Um as of 2 o'clock, we had not received anything. Okay. Um and then I had um one more question related to the roofs because of the rendering. Is there a single roof color or are there several roof colors? There's no re-roofing proposed. Did I state that somewhere? It looks like there's two different roof colors in the rendering. Oh, there there has been no proposal for a new roof.

Okay. Um, so I believe that it's all the same wood shake, but I didn't notice a difference in person. Thank you. Okay.

All right. Um, thank you. All right. I'd like to invite the applicant or the applicant's architect to come forward and make their presentation. Good afternoon, uh, staff and, uh, commissioners. Uh, thank you for your time. Uh, my name is Alan Leman, and I'm the building designer on the project. I'm helping, uh, uh, Mitchie and Mcclevvice, uh, with their project. uh fairly straightforward uh cosmetic exterior changes, some interior changes um that were uh essentially taking a bedroom that was upstairs, bring it downstairs. So, we have some some window changes there. Um and um the uh project is very minor in nature as far as impact on on neighbors. Uh we do have a change of materials um from uh on the site both wood, stone and uh and stucco and each of those materials other than the stone which is you know on the garage the new stone in the garage which is bringing in the balance from front you know from street to street um and and carrying the you know a lot of that caramel aesthetic um of that stone is a really rich uh uh presence But the wood siding um is all on areas of the house that are single wall construction. Um our uh original intention was to possibly just do stucco throughout the house, but uh due to the structural concerns of needing to rebuild those walls to support the weight of stucco. Um we decided that we would distinguish the old um walls which are single wall from the additions that

were have gone on on the house over the years um and make those stucco um to to clarify what is old and and new on the house and and we feel like it makes a it there strikes a nice balance in in breaking up the um the scale of the house. Um in in regards to Mel's question about the um blank wall. Yes, there is some landscaping that will will enhance that area, but that is um uh in in essence the stairs come down um through that area inside the house and the rest of it is crawl space. So, uh wasn't really appropriate to break that up with a a door or window in any way. So, uh we've left that as is other than the you know the aesthetic of the Juliet balcony helping to break up the scale of that wall. Um the uh the upper floor deck is an existing deck. Um uh the the uh owners did reach out to neighbors. No concerns obviously and from the lack of correspondence. Um nothing uh uh coming in uh negative. Um we'll consider that a positive. Um uh and I think that is uh that is all for this project unless you have any questions for me. questions for Alan. Thanks, Alan.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Uh, did the owners want to make any comments or you're I don't think you have any questions. Okay. I I don't think the commission had any questions about it. Uh, members of the public, I'd like to invite you this time to make any comments regarding this application. Don't see anybody coming up. Any hands on line? No, sir. Okay, I'm going to close the uh public comments, open up the commission for their comments. Commissioner Alurn, no comments. Okay, Commissioner Lock.

No, I actually like the project a lot. Um it does bring continuity between what's going on on Mountain View and then what's going on on it. So, um yeah, I support this. Yeah, it's it's a nice project and um I I think it's been a you have a nice sensitive way you've dealt with materials and and I see you had some uh some challenge as far as the the structure the way you did that and I think you worked it out very nicely. Uh I want to encourage you sometime in the near future though to get rid of that wood roof. I know, but I know it's a big expense, but

move that move that up to the next move that up to the next uh next project. So So we have a resolution um going to find it I do with it. But I looked at the special conditions. There wasn't really anything there. So, do we have a motion for the resolution? I move. Can I Can I ask a question? Come on. Come on up. Ask it. I forgot to mention before we uh um get too far down the road here.

Special conditions um uh for uh copper gutters. I understand the the need to not install new copper gutters, but for existing copper gutters on a on a project like this, the special condition is calling for the removal of those. Um, is is that uh necessary? Um, you know, just because I hate to bring anything to the dump that doesn't belong there. Uh, it's a good question, Alan. I don't know. Can Can the plan director comment on that?

Sure. So, the language states that prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit revised a revised plan for review and approval. Um, I would recommend that the language be um modified stating that prior to the issuance of building permit um any plans submitted shall not include installation of new cover gutters. Perfect. That does that clarify? Yes. Thank you.

All right. Um, I'd like to make a motion that we accept uh design study uh DS25393 as conditioned with the um amended condition of approval number 27. 27. Yeah. Second. Okay. U roll call, please. Commissioner Alborn, yes. Commissioner Law, yes. And Chair Leage,

yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to item number eight on the public hearings. That is another design study DS26055. this Steuart project's consideration of a combined uh concept and final uh for the replacement of all windows and doors, replacement of all the wood and stucco siding, partial replacement of the tar and gravel roof and associated site improvements to the uh residents. Can we have staff report, please?

Good evening, commissioners. Um as you said, this is for a combined concept and final. Um, the scope of work has changed slightly from what was originally submitted. So, it probably would be more accurately a planning commission referral had it come in with the original design, but we're doing it this way for ease. And that's a design study 26055 Stewart. Um, it's a 4,000 ft lot. Um, we have the existing and proposed floor area and site coverage. Both are being reduced by roughly 10 square ft. uh they have existing non-conformities with regard to site coverage, floor area, height and parking. Uh building nonconformities uh shall not be reconstructed when demolished and demolition is defined uh at least for walls uh when more than 50% of both the structural framing and cladding are being removed. Um for this the portion of the structure that is relevant for that is the third story portion. is the the west portion of the top floor would be considered a third story because of the basement. Um that is not actually a basement because it's um more space between finished floor and ground level. Um but because of that the applicant uh has made some minor adjustments to their plans to make it so that the uh total demolition of walls will be 40.7% and for the third story it'll only be 47%. they get under that 50% to make sure that they can maintain their non-conformities. So, we're just going to breeze through these uh elevations. I have one for each view. So, if you have any questions at the end, we can always go back for reference. Um this is the west elevation. Uh as you can see that that portion of the top story is the third story element of the building. Um reducing the total number of windows and doing some restructuring but pretty comparable amount of glazing overall. Uh

here is the east elevation. So that's the front. Uh the majority of the work is in reducing the windows and rearranging them and then creating a um an entry where there is currently a kind of two garage with a garage door and a man door um to just make it into a entry door. Uh here is the north elevation. Um reducing the number of windows um and rearranging the siding. The property has uh right now shingle siding, horizontal shiplap and stucco as you can see from the different elevations and they're kind of consolidating that into vertical wood siding and stucco. Um simplifying the siding overall. And here is the south elevation. The windows on the third story are kind of wrapping around uh and some just a little bit of rearrangement here or there and the removal of the chimney. Uh here is the finished details. Uh it's a lot of muted grays um which fits into our earth tones um color wheel um and it's not high contrast. So staff viewed that as approvable. Um, they're doing a PVC and gravel roof as a replacement for tar and gravel. Uh, shiplap wood siding, black aluminum windows, stained wood doors, and their all their lights are downward shielded and meet our lumen requirements. With that, staff recommends approval uh and adoption of their resolution.

Any questions for staff? Mr. Alburn? Um, thank you, Mr. Orlando. Um, what story is the flat roof on? Uh, the third slash second story. Okay. Um, that's all for now. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Uh, this time I'd like to invite the architect or the designer come forth and make their presentation.

Thank you, Jacob. Commissioners, chair, director. Thanks. I'm Patrick Lee Masteraster, architect. Um, I'll try to keep this short. I know you got a busy night tonight. Uh, basically, my client approached me uh with this project. Um, non-conforming in many ways, multiple revolutions over the years. Uh, the basic problem was an internal circulation. Um, that caused a lot of problems with bedroom bathroom layout. So the idea is that we basically reorganize the interior but keep the exterior form and scale the same. Replacing the single plane windows. Uh it's got a mid-century feel originally. So kind of keeping with the mid-century feel. Um trying to keep windows like for like. Uh as I found out, you know, the rules with if you remove a window, that's considered demo. Um, the thing that really got us was if there's less wall to a corner, you have to count all of that. So, that changed things a little bit. Really interesting for me to come across that part of the code, but we were able to make that work and I reduced eliminated a window here and there to make that work. Um, but basically just upgrade the house, all new systems, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, it needs all of those things. Um, new finishes. Um, and you know, open up the view a little bit in the one corner area where we can by removing the fireplace.

Okay. Any questions for the architect? I have one question. Sure. Um, what is the height of the entry door? I couldn't uh the height of the entry door will probably be about a 7 foot door. Okay. And you won't see it from the street. And so to answer your question, sorry, it's one flat roof um for the whole house, but basically on the street side, it's a single level house. This is the steepest site I've worked on in Carell so far, but that's, you know, on the third floor, it's very, very steep. Um, so it it's going to be just maintain the existing roof, basically, just re- roof it. Yes.

Um, thank you. And I had one more question. Um, and it it it um it circles back to one of our design guidelines, design guideline 9.3, and that speaks to um uh specifically add details to relieve blank surfaces. and um in this particular property and I recognize the the many um requirements that you had in order to bring this project as far as you have. But on the north, the south, and the east elevations, there are some rather large twotory blank surfaces, large surface areas that are blank,

right? Um, and that actually doesn't speak very well to that design guideline of ours. Um, is there I notice uh in on the front elevation there is a very large tree that will help mitigate that right with landscaping. Um, but the the two I'm thinking of the two um sides, not the west facing so the north and south, right? Um, can you just speak to that a little bit? I mean, it's I I I support the project. I notice a lot of the window sizes seem to get smaller which made that blank wall larger.

Yeah, I think the blank wall is an outcome of this topography. You know, as the grade falls, that wall just becomes bigger. Um, you know, where the existing residence is pushed out as far as we can go. So there's no flexibility of doing some jogs in and out uh with unless we lose space on the inside. We couldn't go out. Um which uh in terms of the way the plan is, it's it's quite difficult. We got a junior ADU. It's actually uh currently two residences. It's it's a upper floor and a lower floor that was grandfathered in. I guess you Well, there was some approvals that happened. Um, so making the plan work, there isn't a lot of room to reduce the square footage unfortunately to do some of that. Um, and the privacy is quite, you know, the both neighbors are right there as well.

Um, so it's kind of wall and wall if you I don't know if you noticed in the tour. Um, so to me, you know, it was kind of like the window locations as a privacy issue maybe a little bit more for the neighbor. Um, so I would say the the only thing we could do perhaps would be, you know, introducing more of the wood versus stucco to try to give it a little more texture on some of the blank walls. We weren't planning on removing all of the stucco. Um, only where structurally we need to add a sheer wall. Uh, things like that. We were trying to maintain uh from a cost perspective, you know, we're trying to minimize the amount of work to the exterior as well. And did do we have a landscape plan in here?

No proposed change proposed change. There is a landscape plan in the S um but it's all existing. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Yep. All right. Um any members of the public like to address the planning commission regarding this application? Okay. Anybody jumping up? Any hands up online? No, sir. Okay. All right. I'm going to close the public comments open to the commissioners. Commissioner Albert, did you have additional comments or

No, no additional. I But I am concerned about the the large blank walls. I just don't know that given the site and the architecture. I don't know that there's any way to mitigate those on the north north and south. Yeah. I mean, they're they're they're kind of working with an existing situation. you know, they had a lot of challenge as far as how to work this out. Um, also those blank walls, they don't really, you know, they don't, they just kind of face the neighbors, you know, it's not and als you know, I think the intent of those large blank walls is to mitigate, you know, mass and bulk. Mhm. And because um I mean the way I you know, this looks like a single story from the street, right?

So it's um you know that whole street there has got incredible elevation change, right? You know, we looked at that house next door a while back and yes, it was really dropped off. I mean, you have to you kind of have to have a bridge to get to the uh to the house, but um you know, I I tend to I tend to agree with you. I think especially given the existing how much of that they're retaining. Um yeah, I would support the project. Yeah. And uh Commissioner Lock, do you have comments on that or?

Um I actually have no real comments on it. I the north and south walls to me do not cause me any concern just because of the steepness of the lot and the neighboring houses nearby. So, no problem.

Okay. Um, yeah, I don't have any additional comments. I mean, I think this is a nice upgrade of a, you know, kind of a unremarkable mid-century modern, you I mean, uh, I mean, there's a lot there's seems to be a lot of love for mid-century modern right now, but a lot of these mid-century moderns were just little cheap flat top houses and and u, you know, they uh but but I think uh when, you know, current architects, they kind of focus on them. They, you know, they're coming up with some nice upgrades to them. So these these little cheap houses which are not cheap anymore are uh I we're seeing some nice nice improvements to the designs. So um having said that I was getting the resolution up here.

I think I think I've got the right one here. Uh there weren't I don't think were there any special no special Oh well the standard conditions yeah kind of standard ones in there

I would I would move that we accept uh DS26055 um as proposed and conditioned by staff Second. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Albourne, yes. Commissioner Law, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion is carried. Thank you.

All right, that brings us to our next item, which is item number nine on the public hearing. This is another design study. This is DS25172, the Munus Project. It's consideration a concept uh study for substantial exterior alterations and a 407 foot addition to an existing 1,140 ft single family residence. Staff report, please Thank you, chair. I'll be presenting the Munos project. This is a typical 4,000 square foot lot. It's a resubdivided corner lot in the R1 district and in the archaeological significance overlay. It's currently developed with a 1,141qt residence, a one-story residence, and a 181qt detached um studio I should say. Uh the project proposes to redevelop the current house um bringing it up to 1548 ft remaining singlestory and the existing studio is proposed to be uh demolished and replaced with a detached 250 ft garage. The proposed project will modestly increase the height of the existing home. The property does contain two easements. One is an 8 foot wide storm drain easement that crosses the southeast corner of the property. And then there's a three- foot wide sewer line easement that extends along the west property line and crosses the northwest corner of the property. Um the northeast corner of the residence highlighted there in yellow is proposed to be retained in place. It's non-conforming as it encroaches into the

east side setback. Uh so that portion of the home will stay in place as non-conforming and then the northwest corner of the home is being demolished. You can see that hatched area uh in the plan on the right and the proposed garage will avoid the easement that you can see in hatches extending along that southeast corner of the property. Additionally, the the eaves which uh encroach into that that west easement will be removed entirely clearing that easement out. So, I'm going to begin by discussing the proposed garage in the front setback. And as you're aware, garages are permitted in the front setback. Uh detached garages, I should say, attached garages are not permitted. Uh the planning commission does have a few findings to make to allow a detached garage in the front setback. These views here are from uh 4th Avenue. So you can see that the proposed garage will sit exactly at the front property line. Um I'm going to go through these uh six findings. The first finding speaks to dimensions and the proposed project meets the required dimensions and square footage. So, um it's at the maximum square footage, which is 250 ft. Um but it meets the the height and the the width dimensions. So, no issues with finding number one. The second finding speaks to how we need to um landscape at least 50% of the adjacent rightway. A landscape plan is forthcoming um but the project is conditioned so that this finding will be met. The third finding speaks to significant trees. The site does feature four significant trees and the proposed garage as I mentioned located right on the front property line doesn't encroach

into any root zones of the trees. Um so the project does meet standard number three. The driveway however not on private property but permitted within the city rightway does slightly encroach into a root zone. So, that's one of our conditions of approval for the applicant to meet with the forester um to to work out how to prevent any damage to the tree roots. But as far as the garage on private property, no root zones are affected. Finding number four speaks to the protection of free and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles. So, this roadway is flat. Um, there are very few properties accessed by car that are located east of this site. So, as you saw today, it's a deadend street. There's only a couple homes um further along further east on 4th Avenue. So, there's relatively little vehicular traffic. However, as you did see, there is a foot bridge located east of this property. So, there there is a there may be a fair amount of pedestrians coming along uh forth. However, there is reasonable visibility. There's a planted island on force that is um fairly close to the subject property, but visibility um in front of and behind the island appears to be maintained. Finding five speaks to how the development will be in scale with adjacent properties and uh the design guidelines speak to how to position a garage. So at 250 ft is it it is at the maximum permitted size and um we do have a property directly west that is two stories and then a property directly south which is situated at a higher topography. So this garage is subordinate to neighboring structures

in terms of its height. Uh however the the project included a proposed 11 ft sight wall. You can see that um north south line between the house and the residence on the plan there. Uh that sitewall combined with a proposed overhanging shed roof detail spanning the house in the garage um led staff to recommend removal of those features so that there isn't an appearance of an attached garage which is not permitted. I believe the applicant is uh prepared to present today some alternative plans so we can discuss that uh more later. Finding number six speaks to how uh the placement of a garage within the front stepback would add diversity and it would the subject block does not feature detached garages otherwise. Here are the existing and proposed elevations. Um the images on the left show the street view and then the images on the right show standing inside the the front fence. Um so you can see um the proposed uh garage on the the left images and then the proposed house on the right images. One of the draft conditions of approval is um speaking to reduction of the doors. The commission has often required door heights to be human scaled and that's interpreted as 6'8 in. In this case um the existing doors are already higher than that. So a draft condition um is to bring down those door heights to make them more human scale particularly on the front elevation. Here are our existing west and east elevations.

As you can see on the west elevation, the existing eaves will be removed. The existing chimney will be removed. Uh we'll do it's um horizontal hardy sighting is proposed and then the garage is proposed to be a concrete materiality. On the um rear of the residence, you can see that a small 18 foot addition is proposed. It's that small bumpout uh to accommodate a bathtub. You can see that on the lower half of your screen. And then here's our north elevation. You can see currently that there are uh clartory windows and the applicant has proposed to demolish uh the portion of the house you can see in the photo there on the upper right that is partially encroaching into a a sewer line easement. So part of that northwest corner of the house will be demolished and new windows proposed. We did receive correspondence today from a north neighbor. Uh here's the correspondence with a few requests included. The north neighbor does have some concerns about the new windows proposed for the north elevation. Uh also some concerns about the slight height increase proposed and then just the size of the additions generally. This is just a concept hearing. So, we're primarily looking at footprint and massing and uh the appropriateness of the garage and the front setback. However, here are finish materials uh should the commission have any comments. Uh the applicant also has additional materials they'd like to share with us today that includes some more renderings. These are the preliminary staff draft

conditions of approval. As I mentioned, bringing the doors down to a more human scale. Um, there is a small sitewall proposed for the right ofway. Um, so the applicant would need to omit omit that or attain obtain a permanent encroachment permit. And then as I mentioned, the sitewall and the overhanging shed roof spanning the house and the garage gave the appearance of an attached garage. So, the recommendation was to omit those features. And then again, the driveway, that portion in yellow there, uh, looks like it could impact a route zone. So, those were identified issues. Um, but overall, staff does recommend accepting the concept. Uh, we do have the architect here ready to give us some additional information.

Okay. Any questions for staff? Question. Yes. Yes. Thank you, chair. Um, Miss Wallace, the Could you please go back to slide nine? Certainly. U, it had the materials and I'm looking at the garage siding. There's four colors there. Are they Is the proposal to include four different colors on the garage? Let's take a look at the applicant's materials. They are they includes renderings which better show the garage. Um, so I think that will help us get a sense of the color scheme.

Thank you. for the tinted concrete. Um, and the angled solar panels, is that something that we have here in Carmemell? I'm not familiar. It is. Yes. Thank you. Yes, it is. And we do we we allow solar panels. Yeah. Okay. Any questions for staff? All right. This time I'd like to invite the applicants architect to make the presentation. Thank you. Good evening. Maryanne Shikatans. Do I get a clinker? Let me pull it up for you.

In the meantime, may I share some of the actual material sample because concrete sounds so scary, but here's the garage. So, these would be just two different finishes of the same color. And that would be the color for the house and for the So, so is this a cladding material? That's a cladding material. A cladding material. Mhm. Yeah. How How is it attached? It has gets attached on clips. On clips. Okay.

Okay. It gets attached on clips. May I get a click of the presentation? It are you able to show the PowerPoint, please? Or the PDF? because it's a PDF I can click through for you.

Clicks for me. Okay, good. So, thank you for the opportunity to present this to you. You everybody was on site today, so maybe we can go over the site conditions relatively quickly. Next, um, this is a part one of I've worked in Carmel for a while, but this is a parcel that has the most constraints I think I I've come across in terms of two easements that cut at an angle through the property and it is uh considered a corner lot with the burden of the second uh widen setback, but not the benefits that corner lots usually have because you have usually the option of being able to access a lot from two sides when you are required to have these uh enlarged setbacks. This lot however has the burden of a corner lot setback but you can only access it from one side and even on the access on that one side with the large pine that we have. So we are very restricted um in that sense of what we uh could do. Uh the clients next please. the clients um liked that little cottage and we were trying to keep as much of the feel of that. So this would for most people be considered a tear down but uh we were trying to retain most of the structure and we are um removing the what used to be a garage then it was converted into a studio and is really in very very poor condition. So that is the existing home that you saw today. Next and this is the new design and you can see uh where the demolition um is marked in blue and the little pop out that you reviewed in the

field and then the addition on the front including the detached garage. Um and this this is now the uh new proposal. Maybe we go one back and point out. So we had that site roll that staff was pointing out on the um west side of the entry and we are now constructing the whole overhang differently. We are cantalvering it from the house. Basically, we're adding a second wall at the house and using that to cantal lever over the garage. As I have mentioned in the field, our client has a walking handicap and therefore it is really important that we provide a safe um covered area, non-slippy covered area from the garage to the house. And equally important that in front of the garage um the uh client can go get out of the car by fully opening the car door and potentially one day being able to uh have a wheelchair transfer there. That is the reason why we have that widened area also on the west side. Uh speaking to that little retainage uh that we have there, we will be able to bank that so that you would not have um a dripping hazard. So we still do have it to retain it for safety so that it doesn't slip, but we can make it go away basically and be underground by banking it on the west side. Next, that now shows the revised proposal where we removed the wall on the south side. We went ahead and added a sort of a second wall to the house wall and we are cantleding the uh roof from there

and then having a gate and a fence basically on the entry side. Uh this shows you the sections we are you know slightly increasing the uh the height mainly by taking the existing angle and just having more length and by nitro geometry then we have a little bit more height. We would very much like to retain the full height doors as you saw. I mean, today was a very sunny day, but this is a very low and dark site uh many days because it's the absolute low point in the neighborhood. And um this allows us to get sun really a lot deeper into the house if we can retain the height of the doors, which I also believe is consistent with the type of architecture we have there. And we can look at renderings later. So this was um the entry from the previous proposal. You can also see on the garage the dark and light of the uh brick color that uh reflects the two finishes finish options that I gave you the samples of. And um the overhang was proposed out of the beige out of the light color. And the new proposal is to remove that wall in the back, have a fence up front with a gate that is that doesn't touch either side of the house wall and can delivering the um the entry roof from the house wall. When we open the gate next, then you know this would now be open into the backyard. We are constraining it with a little bench there to have a separation. And on the left side you see the door from the garage. On the right side would be the entry door to the structure.

Um this is the back as it is viewed from the backside. Uh from the yard we are stepping down. It's it's pretty similar to how the yard works right now. That is sort of their sunny area. Uh, and we would like to connect it to the in the interior and the exterior and just open that side up. And this is as viewed from the living room. Right now, still with the existing fence and I think the landscape proposal, we would come forth then. Um, I would love to get direction from the U. Planning Commission today. uh if we if you would be open to retaining the fence site that is existing there now because of privacy concerns since everybody from all sides is looking onto that site. Um then speaking towards the glazing and the door height that did catch us a little bit by surprise because we have many mid-century homes in town that have larger doors. It's just part of the architecture and it they're not not human in scale. It just belongs to that building type. And these are just some projects from our own work that are in town. You know, that is from a mayor Bernett's house. You know, we would have 8 and 1/2t high doors and the and that you see that are folding doors. There are hu you know uh twotory glass walls uh on the left side next. And then this is um a project on tours that has 9 ft high doors. And again, twotory high uh folding doors on a historic house on Lopez. So there are examples all over town that I think are well executed and in good proportion to the rest of the

house that are not necessarily 8 foot a 6'8. I I I haven't done a 6'8 exterior door in a very long time. So uh and uh this is the project as it presents itself from the street. Thank you. Let me know if you have any questions. Any questions for the architect? All right. Thank you. Okay. Uh members of the public, I'd like to invite you to make any comments at this time. Any hands going up online there? No, sir.

Okay. I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Alburn, did you want to begin?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Um, for the uh for the door heights, it seems based on the renderings that we are not seeing most of the doors from the public right of way. Um, and that's a that's a factor to me when it comes to human scale. Um, I'm concerned about the color when I look at the color of the garage. Um, especially especially given its its location and how it's coming into the setback as a detached garage right here.

Yes. I mean, beautiful materials. Beautiful. Um but my concern is that we already have um a nonconformity of a sort in that it's coming into the public se the the the uh the public rightway and then to draw additional attention with the change in color from the main residence. It's just a consideration. I'm not I'm not concluded on anything. Um, I did pay close attention uh to Miss Wallace uh speaking about the um the the shed roof. Is that what you were calling it? The appear and the appearance of an attached garage which is not allowed in in the setback. Um, so that that I paid close attention to. And I was wondering if someone could speak to I think we had two neighbors with correspondence related to uh concern about losing uh public parking.

Is that with this project? Have two neighbors reach out. Uh they believed that the proposed garage was actually encroaching into the city right away. Um, I shared the project plans with them and pointed out that it is right on the property line and I didn't receive any additional concerns from either of them.

Perfect. Perfect. So then my you know my comments and they're all unconcluded. Um, if the if the taller doors uh are not visible from the right of way, I know that we have many many projects in town that surely do have much larger um glazing areas um that aren't in the right of way. So, I would be open to that. the the color of the garage, as beautiful as that material is. Um I that is something I would be interested in seeing addressed and I'd like to hear my fellow commissioner's comments about uh the shed roof, though I am sensitive to the fact that it would allow u protection from the elements from the detached garage into the home. So I'm unconcluded all around. So, talk me into something.

Uh, Commissioner Lockach, talk her into something.

Talk her into something. Um, let's see. Um, looking at the photo that I'm or the rendering I'm looking at right now, I also have concern about what kind of I perceive as a box as a garage. Um, and I know this is not exactly what it looks like down in that area. Um, but I would almost suggest getting continuity in the color just because because it is it is a square project. I mean, it's a square structure. Um, I'm concerned about the existing front fence and the height of that. Um I think that you know we typically want to have some openness and ability to see into um the space and in particular this is an interesting I mean it is an interesting house and the new projects um going to be something that that would be something I'd like to look at. Uh, I don't have a problem with the the uh roof that was just proposed between the main house and the garage area. I think it does meet the needs of the applicant um without in my opinion without that attachment and I don't I don't think that's a problem at all. Um I let's see in the back area where we did get uh correspondence from the northern neighbor um there is a concern about both the um bumpout in the tub for the master bathroom and then also for the kitchen area. Um I think that if if there and I think uh the architect said

frosted glass would be an option for the tub area. I would encourage doing that. Um, I think that the kitchen proposal is because you're demolishing part of the square footage and moving that back a little further from the neighbor property. Yes, there's definitely going to be a kitchentoitch interaction and some somebody said something about, oh, well, maybe we could pass through, you know, so, but no, I I don't think that I think that can be mitigated. Um, there is a fence between the two properties that's in very poor condition. Um, and I think that we should encourage replacement of that with a new fence. Um, and I'm not sure what the height of the existing fence is and what the possibility of raising that might be in some way or um, you know, somehow creating a better um, bar barrier between those two properties. But I think right now there they have the same type of situation. There are windows and doors in the back. Then they could see in um, as it is there. And um and I think that's pretty much all I had.

I believe the fence is 7 ft presently. Is it? Okay. Okay. Um All right. The I just want to say the the uh planning commission has the discretion to allow 8ft high fences,

you know, that that are not in the in the front yard setback. So, uh, and I think that's that's a good way to mitigate impacts. So, I in this in this case of this project, um, I would definitely favor replacing that fence. And if they want to mitigate the impacts to the neighbor, then just make it an 8ft fence. Uh, the front yard fence, as I understand it, you can re you can repair it, right? You can repair it. At what point is it is it considered a rebuild? I mean, it's kind of kind of look like it had um

like some lattice on top with some plywood or something. Was that is that right? And then and then um it's probably an old fence. A post are probably bad or something. So, I don't know. I mean, I'm just asking staff what do do you have a trigger for? Uh this is a track 2 project. So this is an opportunity if the commission would like to see changes to any fences on any property line including the front. You can you can you can do that. You can we can do that. Yeah. All right. Uh the fence the fence is currently there is is uh that front yard a front setback is an angle. Is that correct?

It's not yet. It's not It's not an angle. It's not an angle. No. So, it looks like the in the fence is back a ways, isn't it? Is that Is that dotted line represent the the setback that you put on the plans there? Come on up. No. No, that doesn't rep uh uh this is the current fence. If we go to the next uh slide. Uh yeah. So here you see the dotted line and it's labeled setback. That is the actual building setback. The angled line that you see is the fence as you saw it in the field today. And we would be able to obviously uh construct a new fence on the property line

and but that so the dotted line is 15 ft back. the the the heavy dotted line, the very right side is the property line and the parallel dotted line is the setback line, the building set back line. So So the fence the fence is is already for the most part back further back than 15. So you can you can you can build it to six feet. Is that correct? Can I if it's not? Yeah. Yeah, you can build six feet. just needs to it just has to be kind of an open design.

Yes. But if we want to move it forward, we we would like to get some input because the we are working on the landscape plan which we want to bring to you for the for the next hearing and it would be good to get some feedback whether you're open to a more than 4ft fence on the property line. That will that we that's its code. So it's it's 4T if it if it's if it's uh in the front yard set back it's got to be 4T. Okay. That's just that's just code. Okay. The design and it's supposed to be an open design. Have some openness. My understanding was you have discretion over that. Pardon? Not in the front. Oh, I see. Okay.

Yeah. Not not in the front. And we have discretion on the sides to go to 8 ft. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, so that's the fence. All right. So, there was some concern about the material. You know,

this is a situation where I just want to leave the aesthetics to the architect. I don't really want to get into this. I mean, this is, you know, this is this is this is an architect that has a highly sense developed sense of aesthetics, and we don't I don't I just don't want to get into that at all. This is a mid-century modern. It's like, you know, it's like the last one is being upgraded. It's obviously pretty horrible right now. And and I think the architect, you know, in my in my opinion, I just want to give them as much freedom, whatever to do the aesthetics. The only thing I want to look at this at is just in terms of the ordinance, setbacks, fences. Um, it's not a high contrast situation of material. Um, which that would be kind of a trigger for me. high cont.

No, I don't really. I mean I mean it's you know you got you got this and I don't I don't think terracotta and beige is high contrast. I mean we're getting a lot of these black and white houses and that's the big thing now. You want a white house with black trim, you know, and that's what we are trying to discourage in this community because it doesn't really represent, you know, our community. So I see this is as a subtle uh you know type of of of two really you know it's p you know terracotta is kind of a pastel is a combination of orange and pink and red and then we've got this nice beige and and um yeah I mean you can you can talk about aesthetics all day long but I just want to let the architect make the aesthetic decisions. So, the other thing that I I kind of trying to get some understanding on, I apologize if I'm not getting it. So, staff was concerned about the free the garage having looking like a freestanding garage, not attached to the building. And so, the concern of staff was the wall the connection to the wall or was it the overhang or was it both?

I'd say both elements combined. Um especially when you're coming down uh fourth headed east from that approach which is the only vehicular approach. It it it appears connected. What it did appear connected um before the applicant proposed to remove that wall that we're looking at on the screen now. So the wall we're talking about is the one in the back here. Yes. So there's like an open um just call it grid for whatever site wall that wasn't

and then and then there's then there's a section of the wall which has the uh the concrete cladding material on it and and the cons and then there's just obviously there's a there's a large overhang. Uh but that so you were staff was concerned that the combination of the overhang and the and the wall was creating a connected look and so the architects proposed. Do we have what was so this is what was proposed? Yes, this is the revision for this evening. So the the west wall has now been removed and replaced with this little half gate on the east side of the um

I I don't see how this this is better. I mean, this this is, you know, we we've pushed this mass out and it's it's kind of kind of floating on each end. I mean, does it make it look less attached or or or make it more I I kind of from from the other elevation it seemed like that looked less attached unless maybe it's just my uh So, the gate has been added. Is that the primary difference? just today that the applicant has proposed removing the the wall in the middle here that would have connected to this overhanging roof feature. Can you come up so we can just kind of get I can get a better understanding.

Now you'll see there's no more wall. Go to the next slide that'll Yeah. So that is what we propose to remove that wall and I think the concern was traveling up from fourth street. You could have seen the wall connected to the roof and now when you travel up it's completely separated. You won't see it. Okay. So this is what you're proposing. This your fibers. This is Yes, I'm fine. And when you go to the next slide that that is basically what you kind of see the top of that from the from the street and that would be floating roof now and has no connection to that. You took the post out. You can't lied it. Yes. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. I understand now. Thank you.

I think the gate's a lovely feature. I mean, I do I Well, from this from this elevation, it it it's it's more interesting because you you're getting some um it is articulation and the other the other one, but uh you know, it it's a perspective and and um you know, when you see it see it in person, it's it's going to be a little different, but um but you know, my my eye can't stop looking at the garage. my eye just gets pulled to that darker color. I I I can't seem to see the house because, you know, my eye just goes to that that darker higher contrast.

Well, I think the question, you know, the detached garage is supposed to be subordinate to the house. See, to me in this color, so I and I think maybe you know that that is uh an item for discussion whether or not you feel it's subordinate. it's it's it's treated uh differently and that it doesn't have an overhang and it's it's you know a square mass of a different colored material and also the the cladding runs vertically as opposed to horizontally. Anyway, the architect you want to say something?

Yeah, I I you know darker colors recede and will be definitely less visible than a lighter color. So, a uh if you call it a box, a box in a light color will always be more visible than if you go darker with that color. And I'd be happy to do we can do a plywood mockup with that color if you would like us to, you know, and do a a light one and a dark one even on the existing structure cuz it does a darker color does recede. And we we were shooting for sort of a mad drone natural tone, you know. I thought that that that is a really soft color, you know. So, I think I'm in the minority, so I don't know that you should minority. And so, I have one thought on that and yeah, I'm I'm sorry.

Please, but it does kind of box car to me. Kind of look like a Yeah, I agree. a little bit the good doors. What are So, are there visible There are no visible garage doors in this case. So, it just literally looks It's really box. It's the siding. Yeah. Brown a red. So, when the garage door opens in the front box when the garage door opens in the front, uh the seams match the width and then and it goes goes uh from the the elevation to the head top of roof. So, it just comes up. Yeah. Kind of cool.

Yeah. Um, so I I don't have a problem with it, but if other commissioners want have some direction, I think where the finding that we could make is that the question for me is is whether it's subordinate, you know, the colors I don't see as high contrast. Um, you know, so I mean, you could you could theoretically have this this terracotta color as a trim color, but I mean, you know, if it but I wouldn't I'm not suggesting you do that, but it just doesn't seem like a high contrast to me. You know, high contrast is black and white, charcoal gray and white.

You know, those that's that's what we've been kind of dealing with to try to discourage. And this this is this is a different approach. I think I think what's what I what I find would find more challenging for a lot of uh reviewers would be the question whether or not the design of the garage which is significantly different from the house is subordinate to it or not. Well, yes. I mean I think

you know I mean from personally I find it interesting enough as a statement of aesthetic creativity that it doesn't I don't have that problem with it but also the materials you know the type of material kind of ties it together. Well, and is it horizontal on the house and then vertical on the garage? Because that too is where I think my eyes are. Yeah, I'm having it. I I actually Yeah,

we will probably be open changing it. But the approach I took is treating it like it was a historic house. it isn't, you know, but that's the approach we would take to have, you know, an an object that is an intervention in front of a historic house. Although this isn't really historic, but um that is sort of the approach that we took with the horizontal versus vertical sighting. So that is what you would do if the house was historic. Then that would be encouraged to do, right? Because you wanted to really make sure that you differentiate it properly. Oh, that's that was how you that's why you that's how we approached it, you know. Did you did you try it visually horizontally?

Pardon me. Did you try the terracotta sighting horizontally on the garage? We No, we did. I I just I don't know then. I think it really I think this it looks like palisades now. I thought, you know, so we or or trees or it really wanted to be hor uh vertical, I think. But we could go vertical on the house, you know, if you felt that it would tie together better or if you'd like to see that with something. We could approach it that way. But I just wanted to give you the thinking behind it, how we thought about it, you know, and why we differentiated it. Okay. Thank you.

See, I'm I'm I'm Yes. the the direction of the siding, the variety in the color just seems to add and the and really the variety of the two forms, the the residence and the garage just seems to add to an overall complexity in the overall project. Um, I don't know. Talk talk me into something, folks. Well, I I you know, it's kind of it's it's an like I said, it gets back it's an aesthetic it's an aesthetic approach and the designers just explained you know the arctic has just explained how they saw it that they uh uh I think you know what I heard was first of all a differentiation between the two structures which kind of came out of a a hysterosity you know requirement which it doesn't really have but it it kind of starts a way of thinking and the other is the vertical uh kind of reflects u you know the trees is that what I heard about the trees or so forth so you know it gets into sort of an aesthetic thing you know I think our where we you know the the way for the planning community to approach it is look at what the language says says is subordinate so the question is do you feel it's subordinate

no I don't okay and and and I think Um there has been an aesthetic decision to make it um different from the house and subordinate means it's it borrows from the house design or it is uh you know the house sets the the design and then the the detached garage is subordinate so it would reflect that. So that's a challenge for for the architect. How do they do how do they make that connection to make a subordinate?

So it kind I think you know rather than uh give direction about materials or direction these colors I just think the challenges here how could it how can the architect make it subordinate to the house? Yes. So that's that's the direction I would give and then let the aesthetic decision and the connection be made by the by the architect. I would support that chair. And what about the what about the door heights? Where are we on the door heights?

I am of a little different mind. I don't I mean mid-century moderns have, you know, a lot of glass. That's just the nature of the beast. So, I'm not I'm not uh you know I I don't want to put uh all these designs in one box when it comes to door and window glaze and stuff. You know, if it's if it's a modern house just by the you know what is authentic to that particular design is more glass and Florida ceiling. you know, you you don't want to see all these uh you know, um you know, lines. You know, that the whole idea of of the geometry of modern, you know, architecture is uh simpler geometric forms that aren't all chopped up. You know, when you start, you know, there's there's modern architecture and there's contemporary. Contemporary architecture is wide open. It's postmodern. I mean that's Frank Gir's deconstructionism. It's it's all these other things but what we're typically dealing with here in Carmel because we are architecture architectural history has modern architecture. It's got that mid-century modern and then we have you know like the stuff that John Thotus is doing which is was really very you know state-of-the-art you know you know modern architecture but it was based on simple geometric forms and how you put them together. Mhm.

So, uh I don't I don't and I don't really think that an 8 foot high or an 8 foot six high door is not human scale, you know, for mid-century modern. I I would agree, you know, and and and like this house with the big overhangs and so forth, you get these really strong horizontal lines which kind of bring the house down and make it connected to to the land. And that's what I like about the horizontal sighting. It it repeats that that the lines of the overhang and it looks like you're using a channel. Maybe that's an aluminum channel. Beautiful.

I know that uh Craig uh he was here a minute. Oh, is he still there? He is. He's got his head down. He used that on a design he did for um the my roses. He's got that uh he's got a channel that creates a strong horizontal line around the house. So it's it's uh you know just it it it it kind of mimics that uh that strong uh horizontal geometry of the house. So, chair, will we strike then the condition of approval six for human scale doors, right?

Um, yeah. I don't know exactly how to deal with that language because we, this comes up all the time and know and I know some of the other planning commissioners have a totally different idea or, you know, feeling about this than I do. In particular, Commissioner Allen, she she was really, this was kind of a thing. All right.

So, just to clarify, what comes up all the time is that 6'8 number. In this case, the existing mid-century house has taller than 6'8. So, I didn't recommend bringing it down to the 6'8. I recommended just keeping the scale as is. But if you're supportive of more glazing, then we can just strike that condition entirely. Well, like I said, I I leave it I really want to leave it to the designer architects how they do interpretations with with a particular style architecture. And when it comes to mid-century modern, you know, I I just rather leave it up to them. Well, this the condition of approval says no higher than 76.

Well, I just I would just go with what's being proposed, but that's just my the way I deal with So then we would So then can we strike condition of approval six then just remove the human scale doors? Yes. The condition of approval seven for right of way permanent encroachment application. We need that. What are we going to do about the sitewall and the projecting shed roof? It sounded gathering is that the commission is supportive of the cantalvered roof form and the site wall has already been removed. Yeah. I think that's been resolved by the uh so we can change condition of approval eight.

Um and then the driveway I think I think that covers it. Yes. I mean it okay the back sounds like oh and the back fence. Yeah. So is there is there I think is there a window above that? Um that's that's a freestanding tub in there or some kind of tub in that little bumpout. Are there like high windows? Is that what's being proposed? Actually, that's what I Maybe we should bring up the floor plan. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was uh Mhm. Okay. And we do we have that little photograph then. Is Is that it where where you're circling there with your cursor?

Well, that's the side window. I don't know that she's concerned about that because that really doesn't that looks in the yard. So, we This is just from another project of ours. So that is what we were thinking of that in the back that is all glazing but that it would be all frosted because I mean the client doesn't want to look out on the fence anyway but it's really nice for light because it's very dark back there of course. Uhhuh. So you're you're proposing use some frosted glass just like that. Okay. Well, I'm I'm fine with that if it's if it's obscured. It's probably be better anyhow because it's not it's not like you're looking into a little courtyard of landscaping.

Okay. So, did did we uh so that is that the draft conditions we you want to you make you made a motion? Uh I'll make a motion that we accept the uh concept design study 25172 amuno um with the amendments that we've given to staff. And does staff have the details that you need? I believe so. Second. So staff is um those are under the uh draft conditions. Uh page what page

exhibit A page 14 14. Thank you for all scrolling you all we're doing this evening. I'm having quite a bit having a little trouble with my scrolling with this this new uh format. You say page 14 14. There's 14 or 215 if you're looking at the whole packet. I'm just looking at the resolution. Yeah, those are the

This is okay. Here we are. Yeah, but it's not listed listed under it's just conditions of approval concept. It's not draft. Okay. Um so condition number uh draft condition number eight is has been resolved with the redesign. Was there a uh was there a draft condition in part in part supported by the commission? You're supporting the shed roof feature. So, and then the sitewall is no longer proposed. So, I'll amend that condition. Mhm.

And then the other the other the other uh direction we're giving the architect was to uh create a connection with the garage to the review the garage and so that it is subordinate subordination to some type of you know connection so it's subordinate to the house. Mhm. Okay. Yes. All right. Yes. Um we have a motion and a second. All right. Okay. Uh roll call please. Commissioner Alboard. Yes. Commissioner Law. Yes. And Chair Le Page. Yes. We'll call the motion is carried.

Okay. Thank you. All right. That brings us to item number 10 on the public hearings. This is another design study. This is DS26081. This is uh PNT 2024 LLC. Consideration of a concept design study for demolition of existing single family residence and detached garage construction of new 3,530 ft residence inclusive of a 529 foot tach garage. Staff report please. Thank you. I'll be presenting the PNT 2024 project. This is a uh 13,311q ft irregularly shaped lot. There is 1,725 ft of steep slope area which you'll see there at the kind of the northwest corner of the property. So that steep slope area of slope greater than 30% does reduce the building area on the site to 11,586. There is an existing 1,232 ft singlestory residence and a 573 square ft detached garage. The proposed project uh proposes to um demolish the garage and remodel the

existing home uh to be a 3,530 ft one-story residence uh with a new 529 ft attached garage. This property is in several overlays. It's an R1 uh zone, but also the park overlay, the beach riparian overlay, and the archaeological significance overlay. So, you can see here that the property is immediately adjacent to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Uh, and here is a detail of the topo map. And I know on site there were questions about where that property line is. You can see the wood fence um where we were standing is just just east of the property line. You'll also notice the it's labeled ditch flow line. That is the little the little creek. Uh on the left hand side of your screen, you'll see the ride ofway easement. So, as I described on site, this property is only accessed via that easement uh from 11th Avenue. So, the property is currently developed with a 1960s era home. The planning commission is required to determine setbacks for properties that are either irregularly shaped or larger than 8,000 square ft, uh, which this property is both. And we don't have a prior setbacks determination. So, um, one of the the main goals of this concept hearing is to have the planning commission approve setbacks for this property. In the table there, you'll see that the applicant is proposing the typical setbacks, um, 15t front setback, um, 3-ft side setbacks, but caveat, we'll talk about additional setbacks in a

moment. Uh for the rear the setback is 15 feet or three feet for structures less than 15 feet. Uh a composite setback. Again this is standard 25% of the lot width at all points. Um because of the overlays there are additional setbacks to consider. The park overlay requires a 15 foot setback from the park and then the the ESHA setback, the environmentally sensitive habitat area requires a a 30-foot setback. So the proposed setbacks comply with these with these proposed if the commission agrees uh except for as you'll see in this next slide the existing home slightly encroaches into that 30foot Asha setback. The applicant is proposing to demolish a portion of that encroaching um residence that hatched area. However, so this is propos proposing to be demolished, but this little triangle area is proposed to be maintained in place and that is non-conforming as it's within this 30-foot zone between the creek. Um, and here's where that 30foot setback would fall. um if the commission feels it's appropriate to keep that portion of the house non-conforming. Uh otherwise, the proposed project meets all the other setbacks here. The code does speak to again this this environmentally sensitive habitat area. There's language about requiring any development to actually be 100 ft away. However, staff is able to make these findings that 100 feet would completely um remove any development opportunities

for this site. And so the 30 foot setback highlighted there is appropriate as it allows the the principal use of the property which is which is zoned R1. Um and if we were working with a 100 foot setback that would not be possible. Here are photos of the Mission Trail uh nature preserve uh which the purpose of the overlay is to ensure that any development on private property adjacent to the park is compatible um and protects the park resources from any visual or physical impacts that might be associated with the development. And so that the parkland uh still serves to enhance public enjoyment of the park and of course the habitat. As we saw today on our walk, this project is visible from the park. However, implementation of landscaping could really serve to reduce or even eliminate the view impacts over time. As we saw today, uh the property immediately north of this one is nearly fully screened from that pathway in the park and in time uh landscaping between this proposed project and the pathway could could produce the same effect. Of course, we're uh going to be looking closely at the landscape plan, but as this is simply the concept hearing, we're not getting into the details of the planting quite yet. The forester hasn't reviewed the proposed landscaping plan yet, but as our applicant mentioned on site, they're working with a biologist. They understand that invasives that exist now will be removed and any new plantings will be natives. Um, so not only the park overlay, but the beach and riparian uh overlay. Beach doesn't apply here, but riparian does.

uh requires view protection um and then citing any development so that it would would not conflict with the recreational use. So mainly that walking path. Uh so the staff does of course recommend restoring visual quality via new landscaping and tree planting where either trees have been lost or um did not exist previously. So, this project is scheduled to go to the Forest and Beach Commission tomorrow. The Forest and Beach Commission will be evaluating the appropriate tree density for this site. And when we come back to you for final details, we'll talk more about trees and plants. Uh the beach and riparian overlay also speaks to required design compatibility. Uh there is more analysis in the staff report about the design guidelines. Um but in short these are just draft suggestion conditions of approval to bring the project into compliance with the design guidelines specifically the building form and footprint. As you can see this is a highly irregularly shaped lot with a set access point. Um the access will be via that current that easement from 11th. So the applicant was considering practical vehicular access to a garage and that is why you'll see the attached garage placed at an angle. Um so something the commission could consider is whether that is a successful design element. There are also while it's generally a U-shaped home, there are a few um projections that make it somewhat complex. And then as far as more detail items, the commission could weigh in on whether a combination of arched elements and more traditional

um flat topped windows and doors is um appropriate or if it adds visual complexity. Additionally, there are design guidelines that speak to a consistent roof pitch throughout. And this home is proposing three different although modest to the eye. There are different roof pitches proposed. And then lastly just that human scale windows and doors. Again staff has heard previously from the commission that 68 is a human scale and this project does propose uh taller windows and doors. I believe I have a schedule a couple slides later. Here's our roof pitches that you can see and the floor plan. U and the applicant is here today to speak to kind of the design development of the proposal. We can always come back to this slide as well. And these are just some prior um design development shots to show you that they have been working on how to simplify their footprint. Here are the elevations and photos of the story poles. I heard on site there was a question about tree number four proposed for removal. I did confirm with the forester that it has a fungus and so he confirmed that uh it might look healthy but it is not. So that that tree is okay to remove. Otherwise um the proposed project will avoid the root zones of the significant trees particularly a tree where they are going to do a bridge foundation and the forester has offered preliminary approval of that plan. Here you can see the side elevations and the south and north courtyard

elevations. So those courtyard windows and doors are visible from the park as well presently at least without um additional vegetation. And here are the proposed window and door heights. and preliminary finished materials. If the commission wishes to uh comment on the driveway gate as well. That was not one of my draft conditions, but uh adding it here in case there are comments about that. Um and that um concludes my presentation. I do off I do recommend acceptance of the concept design.

Thank you. Can Can we just go back to the setback again? I just I just want to get get this clear in my mind. Okay. So, um it's required to have a 30-foot riparian setback. Yes. Okay. And they are proposing to take some of the projection of the existing residence out of that. Yes. But not all of it. This So the the the language in the ordinance do do we have that spec right here? Yes.

In no case shall structures be allowed closer than 30 ft. So that's that's pretty cut and dry, isn't it? Okay. I just want to I just want to confirm that. Unless the director has a comment.

I believe um and Miss Wallace can correct me if I'm um not right but I believe in this case what they are proposing is to maintain that um nonconforming triangular piece which um would not be a a new structure that's allowed. It would be the existing development similar to if they were to remodel the house, not touch any of the walls, they would be allowed to maintain that setback. So, so if I mean typically if they're not doing any work to a non-conforming, it can it can exist, right? I believe that's

so so what you're saying is they're not doing any work to it. So therefore it's it's it's it's just a legal non-conforming or it's an existing nonconformity with no substantial I think the word was substantial was that we dealt with that in another alteration. Yeah. sub substantial alteration to that's not but that's not that's not

I think this is also a unique case where the planning commission this evening will be determining what the setbacks are so you can increase the setback if you thought it was necessary but this there is not a staff recommendation to require that triangle be demolished or moved Okay. So, that that's that's what the staff is recommending that that that triangle be removed that it can stay as non-conforming.

Mhm. But they are working on that part of the house, right? I mean, they're going to replace are they going to rebuild the roof structure? The architect is clear on that corner would need to um the framing would need to remain to count as retain in place. Okay. Well, I'll ask the architect about that when we get to that. Okay. Any um I just wanted to get some clarification there. Any other questions for the uh for staff? Well, while you're on the subject of setbacks, I'm reading that full Oh, actually, could you go back to the No, it's really hard to hear you.

Oh, sorry. My brothers never say that. Um, under B, um, riparian habitat setback adjustment, coastal development permit approval may include the reduction of a minimum riparian setback. If the city first makes the findings required by subsection F2A, is that what's above? Yes, it is. Um 2A permitted uses within the setback limited to passive recreation, educational interpretive facilities, utility lines, pipelines, drainage, flood control, bridges, pedestrian trails. Just wanted to add that it as usual requires interpretation.

Okay. Well, I'm sure we're going to have more discussion about this. So, okay. Uh any more questions for staff? All right. I'm going to invite the applicant are to come and make the presentation. I don't have a pres presentation, but uh hello again. I'm Pierre. I'm the I'm the owner. I just have a a few things to say. Uh first, right on this uh on this little triangle. We can remove it if if that's what you want. But the point was to the microphone.

Oh, sorry. We can remove it if that's what you decide. The point was to keep the existing foundation, keep the existing wall and kind of update from there, not to move too many things and keep what we could. Um, and another thing, just a little correction in your presentation. Uh, the house is 3,000 square ft plus a garage. Can you Yeah. Can

plus a garage of 500 ft. So, it's not 3500 plus 500. It's 3,500 um inclusive of everything. Uh there was also so first thank you Katherine for for the work. Um we are prepared to work with most of the conditions that were discussed uh with uh by Katherine. The one that we would ask this board to reconsider is number nine is the one about the footprint uh and and the building envelope. um the request to create kind of a simpler building form. Uh given everything that this design uh has already accommodated like we've gone through a lot of iterations and we believe that that condition ask a little bit too much to us. Um we've already um you've understood that there are a lot of setbacks rules that have been applied to our project. So we've tried to taken that into account. We've also accounted for neighbor feedback. Uh months ago, uh the neighbor Anna to the south, we chatted and she mentioned to me, "Please don't go up. Don't do a two-story house." But we did want to build a two a family home. So, we had to play around with with what you see here. Uh we also moved the structure away from the park and from that repayan setback. Um, and that's not ideal for us because we really wanted to use that space on the right side and create a wall between the the courtyard and the park. Um, we are also designing around the all of the existing trees. Um, and that's and including that bridge foundation is that is important to us and we're very happy to do that. Um, we are reusing the existing foundation and hopefully some of the walls. So that's something that is important to us and it's very cost effective for us to reuse the existing foundation of the

existing house and overall we are reducing the site coverage which sounds a very counterintuitive but there is so much asphalt right now and so much pavers and so much garage etc that the new site coverage is actually smaller by 200 ft. So it's a pretty good thing in a way. Um, all this to say that this this is a a more constrained site than it appears and uh and that's why when uh we just ask we're very happy to be flexible on some of the conditions but number nine for us if we could continue with this shape of a of a building would be very important to us because it just makes sense for a family home. It's a really works for us. Um, and we are working, as you said, as a biologist to add some trees to create a bit of a a buffer. Actually, I call it a buffer, but it's a complete screen. We are going to hide the house from the park. Um, and then that's it. So, thank you. That's that's all for me. Okay. Thank you. Was was your architect going to

Yeah, she she's online. She's online. Okay. All right. Is she uh does she want to go ahead and make her presentation there? I don't think she has a presentation. She doesn't have a presentation. Hi, can you hear me? There she is. Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Cindy Scarlet. Nice to meet you all. Um, Pierre and I have been working on this property for 6 months now. Um, like he said, originally we thought it was going to be a um, easy house in Carmel. Lots of space. Um, turns out there's a lot more constraints than um, we originally thought, but we've been working with Catherine to make sure the house um, meets our requirements plus the design requirements of Carmel. Um, the setback, this is all like stuff we're working with um, and still have a nice family home, a contemporary cottage is what we're looking for. Natural materials. um working with the biologist to make sure the buffer between the park and the home. We have good screening. We're taking out all the invasive plants and gonna have nice screening yet still have a home that fills um human scale, comfortable, nice little courtyard the house wraps around. So, we've had the constraints with the um tree the trees. So, we're working the footprint around that. So it doesn't look like a simple shape if you look at it from above or on the floor plan, but we feel like we've really worked with all the constraints and made it the best house that can be for the site. And yes, we have to reframe part of the where we're taking out the the one block from the existing house. So that wall would have to be reframed. We could leave the existing footprint exactly as it is if that would allow us to be within the riparian, but we're trying to like pull it back some. So, yeah, we'd have to reframe a new wall right there. If that answers your question about the um ripar, the riparians back. So, we're hoping to have that

small triangle be left as is so we can reuse the existing foundation. Um, the garage is skewed because of the access. It's the only way to get in. So, there is going to be that slight angle. But, we're hoping that you are going to allow this design and concept at least because we think it's a a really good a nice design for the property. Okay. Any questions for the arct? All right. Thank you. All right. Uh members of the public who'd like to come up and address the planning commission regarding this application.

Hello. Uh Joe Narvay again. I had good things to say about the mission trail park which I love. Uh but regarding this application, um I'm here to speak in opposition to it because it's just it's quite massive. a 1,200 foot house is being tripled into a 36 or 3500 foot house and it just seems massive to be next to the Mission Trail Park. I'm sure there could be screening and trees put in, but it's take years for that to grow. When you walk on the Sarah Trail, which is the main thoroughfare of the park, the orange netting is quite shocking. And um I know there's not going to be orange netting on the house, but the house will remain quite shocking. So, um I would propose I mean no more than doubling the size of 1,200 to 2400 which would be a reasonable size for the house and uh less obtrusive in the park, more in character with the neighborhood and uh just a more reasonable size. I personally live in a three-bedroom, two bath house which is 1600 ft² with a sun room and it's hard to imagine what I would do with 3,000 square feet. It's a lot of house and um it's hard for me to imagine that size being in that place in the park adjacent to the creek and the Sarah Trail. So I would just recommend a more reasonable size. Again, I mentioned doubling it would be 2400 ft um which would be substantially less than the very large 3500 ft². So just my thoughts uh especially regarding the park and the character of the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Karen, come on up. Hi. Um, I live above this house, so I'm going to talk from two different angles. Um, I saw there might be skylights and the other night all of a sudden I was almost wakened up. There were so many lights on down there after being dark for a long time. So, I think skylights might be a little intrusive up the hill to where I live. Um, and all lighting should be down lighting actually anyway in the park. There are a lot of windows and the design of it makes it look, I think, bigger than it needs to be because of the courtyard and the way it winds around. And I didn't take a really good look at how much they're working around existing trees, uh, which could be the complication there. But now I'm going to talk from the point of view of uh Friends of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and the park itself. When I saw the orange netting go up, I was both relieved that it looked one story, but I was also shocked by how large it looks from the preserve. Um that house just north of it is a very large house, but as you saw today, it disappears into the park. This would be the second house other than when you get up clear up to Cresby, but this would be the second house in the lower park area that is so visible from Sarah Trail. So, I think the sensitivity to really uh understanding that this drainage that's along there is also going to be part of the city drainage projects in the future. not immediate, but there will be drainage projects going on um both sides of those

properties um hopefully within the next 10 years. Um when you look today and you saw the amount of invasive species down there, this is something that our volunteer group has been working on for years. And there is so much ivy down there on both sides, both on the park side, the preserve side, and the private side. We as friends of mission trail would work with the applicant to do as much possible as we could on the preserve side to remove a lot of that ivy and those invasives all the way down to the bridge area if possible and improve that along with what you know so it didn't interfere with anything the city was going to do on the drainage but it would improve that by removing a lot of that there's cape ivy uh German ivy, lots of hemlock. Hemlock is poisonous and it spills seeds all over and spreads from private property onto the park. So, we would offer to work with the applicant to make some good choices along there, too, as far as screening, which I think would be great if the applicant would also work with us to help make sure that those invasives on their side of the fence were removed. And not just removed once because they come back. It's a neverending process of constantly removing it. I did see and I know you just mentioned that we're not dealing with the landscape plan right now, but I saw three or four Doddor cedars on that plan and I know the biologist is trying to do a good job, but there are no other diodor cedars in Mission Trail and I know every inch of that. redwoods would be a lot more um would be better in that riparian area as

the neighbor to the north planted redwoods and more and more redwoods are being planted all the way up the park. They started out, they were just in the Barney Lyola commemorative grove, but now they are up by two forks and they can go right on up that drainage cuz redwoods need 40 to 50 ines of rain a year and when there's so much groundwater there in the preserve, they would do really, really well. Also, willows, toyon, coffee berry, taller trees along the park side. The landscape plan that's there now is more shrubs and bushes. So things that would grow tall and bring the house into scale would be helpful because bigger houses become smaller looking when there are tall trees by them. Mission Trail Park is also one of the places where the Monterey pine can flourish because people aren't afraid of it falling down on them in their homes. So, I would en uh encourage that and especially the removal of all those invasives in that drainage would be a terrific uh improvement. Um if the house could be a little more condensed, it might not look as big, but if they are working around a lot of the oak trees that are healthy, that's uh one of the reasons. But anything we can do to bring the house into scale, control the lighting because people do walk in the park in the evening as well. So the lighting should be sensitive to that. We want the preserve to remain as a place that's a little bit away. You go down there and you get a little bit away. You're away from the traffic. You're away from cars and uh noise and uh it's pretty special. So whatever goes in there as park

overlay and uh riperian overlay should be at foremost sensitive to that area of Sarah Trail. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, anyone else in the chamber? I don't see you want to respond to my neighbor. Um, yes, I think it's a great idea and we could even plant those big redwood during construction like not wait too long so that during construction there is a screen and people from the park don't see like construction for a year with everything. So we could like anticipate that and yes for the IV we can remove the skylights as well. That's easy. And we can every light will be dark sky because it's caramel. So yes, I think uh yes. Okay. Shel, is there anybody online?

No, sir. Okay. Um so you've made your follow-up comments, so we'll just leave it at that. At this point, I'm going to close the public hearing and open up the commissioners. Uh Commissioner Alburn, you want to begin? Uh yes. Thank you, chair. Um, our skylights have evening uh screening anyway. So, is that not true? We do condition all projects now to have the automatic Yeah. shades. So, you'll be able to keep your skylights, but there's a variety that that closes that they're light sensitive.

So, that that should work. Um, uh, condition of approval nine, building form and footprint. Um, I agree. I think it could be a little bit simpler um in the building form. I'm okay with the garage angle because I just don't know that there's any other sensible and safe way to put a garage on that site. Um, condition of approval 11 involving the roof pitches. Um I I would like to see uh fewer uh fewer variety of roof pitches uh in the final design for condition of approval 12 with the the door heights. You know, we've got some traditional looking architecture there and I think we can probably bring those down um you know closer to what we have standard for human scale for those door heights. Um, you've got two conditions of approval sort of related to the landscaping, two and five. Um, and I'm so glad that Miss Fero spoke and and that our owner spoke. I think this is a great opportunity. We have a property that's in how many zones? It's R1 plus beach and riparian plus park plus archaeological. You know, this this is this is a very special piece of land in Carmel, and it's adjacent to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. And it's a fabulous opportunity uh to partner between between the property owner and the Friends of Mission Trail for education, right, for removal and maintenance of some of those invasives. Um I love the idea, I even made a note. I love the idea of a landscape plan that includes uh planting some of that screening early if that if that makes sense for the for the construction plan. Um I love that. Um but I do have a

question in that last slide. Was there a photo of a driveway gate with two massive stone pilasters? Could could we look at that again? Absolutely. um that came in just kind of at the last moment. Um we don't usually support metal driveway gates. So a staff condition at final details would would have been a 4ft high wood driveway gate.

Yes. And this is something we would see it final, right? not a concept. We can discuss it all at this hearing. Um just so the applicant could revise if required. Yeah, I don't. So,

okay. Are you Commissioner Lock?

She's passed it on to me here. Um I agree with your comments. Thank you, Commissioner Albornne. Um, I think that simplifying it would would help. Um, particularly the arches um have kind of I think those should be taken out a little bit. Um, the windows that are on the south elevation appear the large windows appear to be higher than the other windows, but they also go up into the under the eve area. And to me, that just it it looks off. And so maybe drop those or um consistency wise. Um agree with the roof pitch comment. Um the garage angle. I agree. That's fine. Um would like to see the uh project as built out of the Riperian um setback. Um, and I think I would agree with the staff recommendation on the driveway gate that um that it would be a wood gate. Um, and in this case, I think it's appropriate that there is a gate just because it is in this park area where people are walking and it I mean, I think they need to have that that little um notice that this is private property at that point. Um, and I think that's really all I have.

Okay. Uh, I'm pretty much in agreement with uh, Commissioner Lock and and Albert's comments. Um, I think uh, because it's so that that repairarian setback is so important here that you need to maintain that. So, whatever you have to do to make that uh, meet that requirement, I think you need to do that. Um it is I I think the only way to mitigate the the views from the park which are very important is with um some trees and and redwood's a good choice there. It's a very good choice and I mean they grow fast there. It's it's in a uh an area where there's going to be a lot of groundwater and I so I think redwoods you know within 20 years you could have you know 150 200 foot redwoods there and um they they will grow rather quickly. So that's a good good um good way to mitigate those those visual impacts. Uh as staff spoke about the consistency of the design, the arches, uh the the the front elevations really need to be more consistent in terms of their design. As as Commissioner Lock just said, you've got different heights of windows. You've got different types of windows going on here. uh you know there that you need to practice just some good uh design elements, you know, getting things to line up, getting consistency. You've got, you know, uh this sort of, you know, stepped window design on the gable end. Over here on this other gable end, you've got stone and and little uh narrow windows. And then and then that that shed roof element is is um you know the the tops of the windows don't line up with anything and they make it look more massive. So I think if you just you can work within the same design element you have there just get things lined up

get some consistency. Um you know the the the arch element staff had a had an issue with that. I don't necessarily have an issue with the arches on the garage or even the entry. It's just that there again, they don't line up. The arch looks like it's too high. It's too close up to the roof. Structurally, you know, from a builder's point of view, it just doesn't look like it would support that. Um, so just, you know, reworking that. I think your overall design is fine. You just need to kind of tighten it up in terms of getting things to line up and be consistent. you know, types of windows, arches, heights, things like that. I know the the uh ent the house is higher than the garage, so there's a step up there. So, but you just need to that needs to be tightened up. Um, was there any other I think that was pretty much it. So,

I have a question. Come up if you want to ask a question. Can we go back to the plaid where we see the setback? So, so you mentioned that one of the condition that I need to meet is to remove the part of the existing building. So, find a way to remove the triangle. So, you need to rework your design so that you're not in the in the setback, the riparian setback. Okay. Would you prefer that I do a straight line?

It's your choice. I don't care if you're at an angle, just you're not in the setback. As long as you're not in the setback, you can do it. You can uh you know, you can you know, if you cut the roof there, you're going to end up with a little a different um you know, shape in the in the in the um Okay. You know, above there. But that I'll leave that design up to you. It's just just me to set back. And is the setback uh could we do a you know that bridge foundation that we do around the tree? Does that apply to a No, that does not. We can't just uh Yeah, that's just for Okay. So, we we will do some type of cutout and we'll make it work. Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay. So,

I think the applicant was when he was talking about a straight line earlier on in the process, they were considering kind of building the house wall along that 30 foot setback and staff did identify that there's a design guideline that speaks to uninterrupted uninterrupted lengths of wall. And so that's why we kind of went the U-shaped direction. Um, did the commission, how would the commission feel about more of an uninterrupted building wall along the setback line? So you're saying more massing along the building line? Yes.

No, they just want articulation of setbacks along along along uh property lines. Is that what you're referring to, Katherine? you don't want you don't want long continuous I mean typically we we try to avoid that because we we don't want that tunneling effect. Um and then that's why we have you know the composite setback requirement. This is this is a little different. I I you know for me the um I think the riparian setback is is very important here because it's right up against the park. And so um you know that that's that's my think it just meet needs to meet that that particular setback um that we don't really have a tunneling effect here so I'm not really that concerned about you know the length of that particular section of the building. How does I don't know how the other commissioners feel about it. No, I think if I understood correctly, you were asking rather than having the courtyard if you were just to go

like to fill in the courtyard to fill in the courtyard with more construction and I think that would appear very massive from the park area and I would not be supportive of that. But that trail has left the station. I think we are so we so so I would I will propose next time a cutout of that triangle. Yeah, I I was I I wouldn't, you know, recommend filling in the courtyard. That just make more

linear mass and and the courtyard is a nice feature for you. It's nice to have the house wrap around it, you know, that way you have a focal point. You can the house can look into that courtyard. It's just uh you can meet that that set back a number of ways. I mean, you could you could where where it it intersects the house, you could go at a 90° and then cut back or you could go diagonally. It's your choice how however you want to design it. Just design it so you're not in a setback. Okay. Um here I am in the here I am in scroll mode again trying to figure out where the one of the consequences I can see of this director is you got very long

it's resolutions. It's page 19 and they're kind of at different scales. You have the plan scale, then you go down to the So, you're looking for page 18 and 19 of 31. Yeah, I'm I'm on 18. Excellent. You got it. I'm getting better at this. So, uh special. Yeah. We got the lands we're going to be waiting on landscape plan, right? That that's that's going to be forthcoming. It's just um bridge foundation building footprint. And we you talked about number five. You got the ve vegetation screening. You'll address that in your your landscape plan. Uh setbacks number seven. We did we resolve that? Uh yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, we're good. The 30 foot, but that can stay in there.

Yeah. Bridge foundation. That's okay. Building form. Um I'm not really sure. What about the the simpler? I think that's in there in um what about nine? What does nine say? A building. Yeah, it's in there footprint revised to feature simpler building form and the architect I mean they can work scale I think for concept I think I I number 10 I don't think you need to eliminate the arch elements I just need think you need to rework that front entry so that things make sense

you know I think and I don't think it's just the arches I think it's the windows window heights different types of windows you need to get some more symmetry in there so it all kind of ties together. Um, we're not we're not going to you know the uh you know the different roof pitches. I don't know why you have a 6 and 12 and a 5 and 12. Um yeah, you know I understand the 3 and 12 cuz that's a shed roof element, but I don't know what the thinking was for those two different uh pitches. I would, you know, if it was me, I'd just go for the five and 12. That'll bring it down a little bit. keep it consistent. That would be my direction. Yeah.

And then the U human scale on the windows. We kind of talked about that as far as the size of the windows. Um, you know, I mean, I think a 7 foot entry door is is is is appropriate for this this type of uh architecture. Anything else? Chair chair, did you want to eliminate and strike condition of approval 10 that says omit arched elements? That's what I'm suggesting, but I'm just I'm just putting it out there. Commissioner Lo, I'm okay with that. I think I want to give them you enough flexibility to redesign that that entryway, you know, and I think obviously there's you like some of those elements, those arch elements.

So, just just, you know, take those and work it work it a little better. Are we striking? Come up to the podium. No, we're not. Are we striking number nine 10? No, but yeah. Okay. But the number nine for the simplification. Simpler cuz I'm going to uh we are going to work on the roof pitch on the windows on some of the size of the doors and the garage. Yeah. But then the overall footprint are we the window I think it's just more of a building form issue.

Okay. you know, you're going to have to redo that that one side for the for the riparian setback. So, that's going to be a little bit of the footprint. So, we'll just see what you come back with. Okay. Thank you. We've got some design work to do. Okay. All right. And chair, condition of approval 12. Did you want to amend the height that's listing? Just make a seven foot. Do you want to amend that to seven? Yeah, just make it seven foot. So, then I will attempt

Okay. uh to move that we accept the concept study for design study 26081 striking condition of approval as staff recommends with the addition of striking condition of approval 10 omitting arched elements and amending condition of approval 12 to state door heights at 7 ft. I will second your motion. Okay. Okay. Any more discussion hearing? None. A roll call, please. Commissioner Albourne, yes. Commissioner Law, yes. And Chair Leage,

yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. You want to take a recess? Okay. Uh we are going to uh take a recess and we will reconvene at 7:15. Next.

Okay, everybody ready? Okay, we will uh reconvene the meeting. Can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Albourne, here. Commissioner Lock here. And Chair Le Page here. Okay, I should have got organized here. So, we're uh we're on the Newman project. This is a design study DS2613.

Thank you, chair. Uh the Newman project is a um revision project. The planning commission approved the demolition of two residences and construction of one new residence uh back in 2024. And here you can see the the former two homes and the approved residence. The revision request is to revise the approved wood railing on the attached garage and at the front entry landing uh to use glass railings instead. Glass with metal supports. Here in the highlight areas, you can see where the wood railings were proposed. And here are the proposed glass railings instead. You can see the at the front entry landing, just two panels of glass with then an open metal handrail. And then at the the deck above the attached garage, all all glass with metal supports. Here's a um comparison between what was approved and what is now proposed. And here's our neighborhood context. This uh is the east block face. And then the next slide is the the west block face. staff did do a field survey and didn't find uh other examples of glass railings on the subject block which is primarily traditional in character uh use of wood stucco um so in the staff analysis I did cite the residential design guidelines although we don't have an explicit reference to railing material there is language about using natural building materials and And then uh in the description of kind of the construction chronology of Carmel, it says that wood is wood is um the dominant material for both house sighting and also

ornamentation and trim elements and the tradition of using natural materials like wood and stone should be continued. Additionally, the guidelines say that the execution of design details can substantially affect the perceived character of a project, including its compatibility within the neighborhood context. Um staff the staff recommendation is that the use of glass and metal in lie of wood does result in a more complex and less modest design considering that the the project features stone stucco and um a faux wood shingle roof. So overall it's a traditional aesthetic as I mentioned here that the materials as well as the the arched transom window elements all contribute to that traditional character and glass railings are more typically seen as part of modern designs um and in scenic on scenic road particularly there are numerous examples but this subject block is more traditional in character um so not only is the proposed design inconsistent with the the style of the home but also the character of the block. And that concludes my presentation. Uh the staff recommendation is to deny the revision request. Thank you.

Questions for staff? Okay. All right. Uh the architect like to come forward make their presentation.

Good evening commissioners Jeff and Noel. Good to see you. Hi Stephanie Mis. Um so yeah uh thank you Katherine for that succinct um little presentation. It it one could certainly argue that the glass we would like to or we are proposing is a more contemporary uh approach. Um a couple things I'd observe is one I think the house is a new house right? It is absolutely brand new and yes it is traditionally styled but you see the mixing and matching of old and new uh all the time right you see it in lighting constantly right modern lights in traditional homes you see very traditional lighting chandeliers in very contemporary homes both externally and internally I know outside lights here in Carmel have their own special issues to to to to be looked at you see it in landscaping you see it in hardware you see it in a lot of things where where contemporary does meld and blend quite successfully with with the traditional and sometimes can be helpful because it sort of wakes the project up. It sort of acknowledges the era and the epic in which it's actually been constructed. And I think it actually can be a very very appropriate uh uh use. Um another observation would be that the um examples she showed were of a of of of other railings in the community in the immediate neighborhood were projecting balconies. They were sort of out there, right? Um, I've done a a new rendering sort of comparing the old and the new, right? So, you see in the upper corner there the the one you already saw and then you see the the lower one, the bigger one, which is what we're proposing with the glass. What's significant is our really is our our glass really is sort of a receding element within that stone box, right? the stone corners that anchor the mass

of that garage element which also creates that second story uh or or that that upper level deck area is is sort of framed and articulated by this those those monumental stone peers that sort of frame every corner at the front door. It's a little bit different. We have the two panels coming out, but that's actually hidden behind an oak tree. I've sort of underdrawn the oak tree because I want you to see what we're actually proposing. But again, that is sort of a receding element. um the and and and so our our our thought is that it's really not sort of this piece which sort of slamming out a candleed element or stuck up on post, but it is sort of internalized to the structure itself. It's almost more akin to a pane of glass or a window that you might have that's integrated with the skin of the building as opposed to sort of an element that that projects forward. Um and then from a practical standpoint, of course, our interests are getting rid of the cap rail. We we do have that internal uh living room there when you're sitting down. Now with the new requirement, not new, it's 10 years old, but the 42-inch high railing, it obscures a lot of the view out. We do have a beautiful little pocket view towards the water. We would like to celebrate that and maintain that. And the other thing that we didn't realize until we were actually out there is that it is a windy spot and the glass provides a much better um way of of ameliating that wind sort of blowing through. It sort of warms up that whole spot. We do have a lot of trees. We have a lot of shade in that area. So, anything that can be done to kind of make that a more cubrious, pleasant environment is something we're interested in doing. Um, I guess I've run on enough. If you have any questions, I'd love to try to answer them.

Yeah. Um, oh, sorry. May I Good. One thing, one thing that wasn't necessarily clear in the original submitt is we also the the the metal elements we would like to be have a a black powder finish. So they would be more akin to a a metal rail even though it is again mostly glass but again it wouldn't be a stainless steel. It would be a black trying to sort of tone down that that that that modern reflectivity that sometimes is associated the metal rail the handrail the up going up the actual verticals the actual verticals. Okay black metal.

Okay. Um so I just want to be clear. So, the reason why you want to have this regardless of your arguments of why it it works is because there's an ocean view there that you you want to see when you're sitting in the living room. Is that the motivation?

Yeah, that's one of the two motivations. The other one, honestly, is that the owner who she's here with me tonight, so I can say this in front of her, she wanted a very traditional house when she started, but she's become more and more enamored of these houses that actually mix and match stylistically a little bit. So, some of the lighting that we have going inside the house is a lot more contemporary, right? So she's she's enjoying this sort of notion of a transitional type architecture very traditionalbased in terms of massing modularity rhythm and a lot of the detailing but but a little bit of that contemporary element is also an aesthetic desire and I we were you know excited and you know to pursue that with her but the other yeah you you were correct the other is that it improves the view considerably to not have that lattice work at the at seating height. So, the the design that you're proposing with the glass, does it have a does it have a a metal rail on top of the glass? It has metal rails. It's just no top rails. Just just pieces of glass mounted between vertical uh ballusters.

Exactly. On that main frontal zone, there's four vertical black metal ballusters and then just panes of glass. And and there's a there's a bottom horizontal rail. No, there's it it lifts it skirts slightly so it floats a little bit. There's a there's a couple inches between the glass and the and the deck below. Oh, kind of looked like a dark line there at the bottom. It's probably probably clearer on my drawing, but again, that's not an officially part of the package that we submitted. Oh, so there's space a little bit a couple inches at the bottom. Okay. But there's no there's no bottom reel. No bottom rail. No, no top or bottom.

No top and bottom rail. But again, we thought we could might be able to get away with it based on the heavy stone that kind of anchors it on on on the corners. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Thanks, Craig. Thank you. Okay. Um, anybody else in the public would want to address the planning commission regarding this application? Anybody online? Shall we? No, sir. Okay. Close the public comments. Bring it back to commissioners. Commissioner Lockach, you want to kick it off?

Sure. Um, I think that I would support the staff recommendation, but I also, and I mentioned this um earlier, just a walk down um down along the scenic um path over the weekend and looking up and noticing a lot of glass paneled um uh same thing um rails that have been installed. that I know have not come before the planning commission and we are currently in the process of revising the design guidelines and so if this type of thing is going to um be occurring and we're not fairly enforcing you know getting um people to come before us or or looking at the context of how these glass rails are going in um I think that's kind of a problem um Looking at this house to me, yes, this is traditional. Yes, it looks better with the wood railing. I certainly understand why the owner would want to change that. And um and I so I so I can understand all of that, but I I also understand what the design guidelines currently say. And so I I could not for that reason support um a change without having to address this on a greater scale. And I guess that's my comment. Commissioner Albert.

Um I I respect and understand staff's recommendation to deny this request for the glass. If if the discretion is mine to make, uh I would vote to approve the request for glass. Uh we saw several pictures of other properties along the street there. Uh there were several varieties of wood railings. There's plenty of representation for that. I think this is a beautiful traditional home. It has been built absolutely to um classic caramel styling. I happen to love the idea of adding a visual element that anchors it today rather than 20 or 30 years ago. So if if the discretion is mine, I would vote to approve this. With all respect to staff, I understand that um the the way that she derived her recommendation. Um, okay. This is what I what I think you should do. I think I I understand you want a glass railing because you want to see your view and, you know, and I respect that. I mean, you know, we views are a big deal in this this community and and um you know, we don't property owners don't own the view, but I kind of feel like uh because many times we don't always give people what they want on the views that we ought to help people get the view when we can. So, what I suggest you do is make a glass design that has a top and a bottom rail. it's going to look more traditional and and just, you know, don't make it so contemporary looking. That's, you know, you're still going to have a little bit of a horizontal line in your view, but but believe me, you won't even see it with all that glass

there. So, I think I think that's the solution. That way you you get a you get you you know you want to bring you're you're talking about eclecticism when you talk about mixing, you know, and the reality is this is a really traditional house from the outside and it and it's a it was a beautiful rendering and it's being a it's a it's the the execution of it today I saw is really it's really looking beautiful. It really is. And Craig, you do a great job on these traditional designs. And you do a beautiful job on your, you know, eclectic ones, you know, and I mentioned the the My Rose's house. That's sort of an eclectic design that that I've been up to that house like a dozen time. It's turning out great because I I know them really well and so I've just been going up there, but it's it's, you know, it's but that that is a house that has modern elements and traditional elements in it. And this one, not so much, but you want to introduce a kind of a modern element or use of material here, but just make it look a little more traditional.

Can I come on up? I think we could make that work. Um, would Ms. Lock be amendable to that as well or is there something where we could work directly with staff and and avoid coming back to you to Well, it's pretty simple. All I'm saying is just get a top and bottom bridge, which you know, that's that's that's pretty much, you know, what you got to come up with. It'd be nice if you got one that rather than just being a square extrusion, if you I know they have some they have some curved ones. You just if you got that on the top, the bottom doesn't have to be curved, obviously, but that would make it uh that would that would be a good compromise, I think, to get what you want. That's why I asked, you know, what do you want here? Yeah.

Because you want to get the view. Fantastic. and and then that would tie it into the traditional architecture. And um and then the same and then on on the metal rail that's coming down the stairs because it's curved, you know, uh you could just use, you know, one of those standard extrusions, you know, it's got a traditional element to it. You know, you're not going to have any ballisters or is that glass? That's not glass. Can't curve it.

Yeah, we This is a little misleading. In this older drawing, there's that tree in the for coming out of that well, and we we get to within the 30-in drop from the from the stair height to the to the planter. So, we actually don't need any more guardrail beyond those first two panels up there. And then just the handrail will Oh, you just need a handrail. Yeah. Yeah. Just just a nice traditional handrail powder coat if you sort of Yeah. A nice powder coat finish work well. What color? What are the windows exter? They're they're clad. They're kind of a a a darkish to putty. Yeah.

Well, if you I was just going to say if you could match the powder coating to the windows, it might tie it all together. Okay, that sounds great. All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so once again, find it. Excuse me. find the resolution. Share the page. Go ahead. So, um, the resolution that you all have before you today or tonight is a resolution for denial.

But based off of the conversation that you just had with the applicant, one of the potential motions you could make would be to provide the direction that you did and remand the approval back to staff. And then as so long as the design is modified per your direction, staff will be able to So we're let staff handle it instead of So what? We're not bringing it back. So they wouldn't come back. Y So what what was it? We're going to deny the motion. No, we would remand the remand remand it back to staff. Remand the direction application back to staff. Make a motion to remand it back to staff with the direction given. Yes. At this meeting. So moved.

All right. I'll make a motion that we remand it back to staff with the direction given from the planning commission, which would be to have a top and bottom rail on the glass railings uh and to uh use a try to use a powder coat color that matches the cladding on the windows with the separation that they've already proposed on this. Correct. So, okay. Second. All right. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Alboard. Yes. Commissioner Law. Yes. And trailer page. Okay. Thank you. Motion carried. Is it a yes vote?

Yeah. Yes. I'm sorry. I was thinking yes. All right. That gets us to So now we are on number 12. Correct.

Yes sir. but they've been patiently sitting here waiting for it. Okay, so this is um DS 26146 Golden Mean LLC. It's a track one design referral for request to amend the conditions of approval with previous track 2 design staff report please. Thank you, Charlie. So, a project was previously approved by the planning commission May of 2024. This was for a new house. Uh, as part of the approval, uh, the or as part of that project, the applicant had proposed a wood fence with stone pillars. At the time of that approval, the planning commission was not supportive of the stone columns proposed along with the fence. Uh the commission specifically previously found that stone columns combined with a simple wood fence is not in keeping with the forest character and as such condition of approval number 34 required the removal of said pillars. Uh building permit was ultimately issued in September of 2024 with condition of approval uh 34 being applied to that project. uh that stated in part that pillars along the front fence line uh shall be eliminated from the project. The two pillars used to support the pedestrian entry may remain. Uh the project was approved um with that condition being enforced. Uh additionally, there are other conditions of approval that describe how you go about requesting changes to a project. Uh the first of the the two applicable conditions being number 10, saying that any revisions need to be requested on a uh a form that is retained by the planning division. And then that um when changes or modifications to a project are proposed, the applicant shall clearly list and highlight each proposed change and bring each change to the city's attention. Changes to the project incorporated into

the construction drawings that are not clearly listed or identified as a proposed change shall not be considered as an approved change. Should conflicts exist between the originally approved project plans and the issued construction drawings that were not explicitly identified as a proposed change, the plans approved as part of the planning department review, including any conditions of approval shall prevail. Uh so this project had two revisions. uh there were changes identified on that sheet uh that I referenced in condition of approval number 10. However, as part of the submitt, those pillars um that were originally required to be omitted in condition of approval number 34 were included in that submission as well as a subsequent uh permit revision number two. Uh the applicant has stated that due to a drafting error and failed oversight, the columns were installed Um, however, since that initial approval, the planning commission has reconsidered their position on pillars on other projects and that subject feature should be considered based on the appropriateness of the design and context of the site rather than just a blanket prohibition. Uh, so with that, staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution as described on the screen. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, questions for staff. All right. Thank you. Okay. U the applicant like to come up and make their presentation.

Thank you staff and commissioners. Again, Alan Leman. Um I am the uh designer for the project as well as the general contractor. Um uh so about 12 years ago, I think it was. And I think uh Chair Leage, I think you were on the commission then. I uh made a a pretty significant error in judgment on a project and um had talked to uh staff several times about a change on that project. Uh we it was under construction and we went from uh wood siding and proposed stucco and uh staff at that time in conversations um I uh misinterpreted how much of a go-ahad I had and we started to put up stuckle wire and then I applied for the revision and uh that revision was not approved. Um, I had made an error in overstepping my bounds. And since that time, I have been uh uh a stickler with all of my clients, all my design clients that every time they request a revision, I say, "Stop everything. We're going to get approval. Um, that's not the way it's done. We need to approach uh this uh carefully because this might not get approved and so I'm overly cautious. This particular uh error on my part was uh not an attempt to overstep the the planning commission's um original uh uh conditions. This was

the version of plan that I reopened on the revision had the fence and it completely got lost in my train of thought that that was in the planning conditions that I was printing on those sets. So I am am not coming to you with anything but uh humility in acknowledging my error. Um, and with that, um, uh, I, uh, immediately upon, uh, having this started this conversation with Evan, um, was like, I am probably going to be tearing this down. Um, but Evan suggested that based on, um, the change in uh, attitude towards this type of design that maybe there was a pathway. And so that's what I'm here applying for um that pathway. And uh in the interest of uh I I I still feel from that original design, it's a it's it's a it's a pleasant aesthetic. It helps to ground the front of the house and the fence is set back 4 ft from the property line. So there's a great uh amount of area there for plantings um to help uh soften the look of the fence um over over time. Um also in the interest of our neighbors um on on this street um they've endured 14 months of trucks, noise, deliveries and things like that. And I'm sure they would appreciate to not have a new construction project start up again. Um but uh I'm I'm hopeful it is acceptable as is. Um and so I uh make the you know

humble request to to uh stop construction there on on the project. Okay. Thanks Al. Have a question. Oh, got a question for you. Yes. Um, how difficult would it be to remove those columns and replace them with the grape stakes? I mean, that that can be done, I would think, fairly easily.

Sure. Uh, we would be uh spending a, you know, a couple of days with a jackhammer out front and um remove those. the the fence as it exists would probably get taken out because um the new locations of the posts would um not be at the um same location. Um they they would need to get offset in order to not fully excavate along there and and um disturb more tree roots. Okay.

Um so that's uh you know a part of the equation. So it anything's possible to to do there construction-wise. Yes. It it would probably be about 2 weeks of of uh of of work in in the rework there to to make that happen. Uh all told. Okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. Well, why don't you come up and just make your comments? Um we certainly have time for that. you know, um I'm still Gail Leman. Um

still

um Allan and I are partners. We always have been, you know, we've done this for about 21 years now. Um I He was so embarrassed when he told me. Um and I and I and I really felt so badly for him. Um, however, at this point in time, the house is on the market. If we have to pull it off for two weeks and start demolishing things, um it really will just hurt us a financially and um um we'll have to pull it off the market too because we can't have people looking at the house when there's construction going on. It's a brand new house. Um, you know, the neighbors have really had to put up with the lot, mostly because we had a virgin lot. So, we had to bring water in for the lot. We had a 100 ft trench on that street across from our house because that's where the connection had to be. And it was a couple of weeks of massive, heavy equipment that shut down the street. And I really hate to do that again to people, you know. It's it's just really a a bummer. And the dust from jackhammering all that stone out, you know, is really extraordinary. So I hope you can um forgive us.

Thanks.

All right. Question. So, as both local owners of the property and developing the property, um, why weren't you aware that these were being constructed? Um, I mean, you're you clearly would know what the conditions of approval were. And how did the contractor continue to build without anybody realizing that this I mean I just I that that I am struggling to figure out how did that happen that were on the drawings and that's what Allan was trying to explain when he reran the drawings for construction. They've never been taken off the drawings. So, our stonemason just did what was on the drawings and they looked so normal there and and we think they you know just if you leave just the two at the entry um which were approved by you I think they're just two columns at the entry this has some architectural meaning that the repetition of the columns and it's not a a mass of stone fence Oh, sorry. Um, but it's it's just it's meant to be. It looks right. And I'm not saying that we were, you know, there was an error, you know, that they never got taken off the drawing and that's how they got built.

So, can can I ask one last question here? The building plans that were approved, did they have the columns on it? And that's a staff actually more of a staff question. And would would you have required plans that showed what would what the planning commission had required? So the the plans on the screen are the original stamp to proof plans not on there and and they have the the two columns but all the other columns have been omitted and that was a rendering but not on the actual drawings.

They're they're also removed from the

land are they? Uhhuh. Um, you know, I we've had tremendous financial hardship on this project because um it took 14 months to get an approval of a very simple craftsman house. And that's that's kind of tough. And you know because money is dormant from the point that we bought the land until we can at least start construction. So, it's, you know, I've gone over this with Chip so many times that the the important thing is when these houses are built for speculation and they're sold, there's a massive influx to the city in property in property tax that the next people pay because the price rise is so vast. Especially nowadays, there's such a big chunk and you know it's it's pretty crazy and I know Krista feels the same way to keep this slowdown going um on people's permits and I you know I don't understand it because the city is just hurting itself and I live in the city you know so I I want the the money to flow back into the city. So at at any rate, that's where I am.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just Sure. Come on up. Question. Um uh so in regards to the building plans at the time that the fence went in, um that's when at that point in the revisions as as Evan showed, the the the columns had reappeared on the drawings. And and again my error and it was not a mason um uh taking charge of the drawings. It was me directing um that construction. So I mean the error is all the error is on me. I'm not I'm not trying to uh cast blame somewhere else. So that's all.

Okay. Um I assume nobody else wants to come up and speak to us about this here. Shaking her head. Um, anybody any hands up online, Shelby? Okay, we we haven't had a lot of takers online today. Okay, I'm going to close the public comments, open it back up to the commissioners. Um, who would like to begin? Paper, rock, scissor. But I'm let I'm gonna let Commissioner Lock start because she had No, I don't want to start. Oh, you don't want to start? All right, Commissioner Alburn. Right. Or I'll start. Okay, let's

I'm going to start. You go. Well, first of all, let me say staff is recommending approval.

So, you know, I mean, and I think uh that that says a lot. I I appreciate the uh the Miaopa from from you guys, and I I do remember that other project, Allen. That was a bad one. And I'm a little shocked that you're kind of here you are again, you know, but stuff happens. I get it. And and I think um you know we uh we have a pro we had another project a couple months ago about some stone columns and and I I was pretty strong saying that you know we've got stone columns all over town as long as you have an open fence design. I I don't I don't think stone columns are are uh violating the uh the open fence design as long as they're four feet tall. And there was two stone columns already approved on this project. So whether there's a couple more on the fence line, I I think u it it just doesn't really make a lot of sense. And I and staff I know staff is worried though about creating a precedent. And you know, if I thought there was malicious intent here or these weren't supported by the guidelines, I mean, I' I'd vote to tear them out in a minute, but I don't that's just not the case here. So that that's that's kind of where I am on it. staff supports has made the findings and they've made the points about not setting a precedent and and I think the the staff report is has been excellent and covered all the the issues.

I've been on the commission now about a year and yes, we have precedent and no we don't. I mean because so frequently we need to interpret the guidelines and the code as they specifically apply to a particular project. You all know I am not fond of approving something retroactively. Um that I feel that we have design guidelines and we have a code um in order to follow um that. However, stuff happens. Uh, stuff definitely happens and it happened in this project to to look at this image that we have on the screen not knowing that those uh additional stone columns were not approved. The the what has what has been built here does not reveal that. It it has a a beautiful proportion and integration between the fence, the stone, the craftsman design. Um I I will not I will not approve those stone columns retroactively. However, I will agree with staff that I think that we should say yes to um to this modification in this particular case. Okay. So, sorry to give you guys such a bad time on this stuff, but um I also think this is a problem that staff didn't notice that there was a change on the plans. So, um you know, you had approved plans that showed there were no columns and then two revisions that had the stone columns. Um,

yeah, I'm I'm just kind of up in the air on this. I I really don't I think we had approved something. There were conditions of approval. Um, so I don't have any further comments. Okay. Um, so Go. Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead. I'll venture a motion, sir. Sure. Go ahead. Make I would I would move that. Um Well, we have a motion, don't we, from staff? We do. Well, we have a Are you're going to You want to You want to modify it?

We have a No, no. I would I I would move that we accept staff recommendation for DS26146 amending the COA for 2024 333PC um and uh granting the use of these stone columns. Okay, I'll second that. Any further discussion? You want to Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Al. Yes. Commissioner Lock.

Yes. And Chair Le Page. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you.

All right. We are brings us to the finale. This is uh item number 13, public hearings, the design study DS 25363, the Mardani consideration of track one design study referral for addition of 156qt front staircase and entry deck and associated site improvements on a single family residence. Staff report, please. Hello again, commissioners. As stated, we'll be reviewing the track 1 design study referral DS25363 Mardani. Project description and background. This is a 2500 square f foot lot. Um the applicant is proposing to add a front deck um some landscaping and to rearrange the site coverage um all within the maximum allowed site coverage with the permeability bonus. So that would be 347 ft of sight coverage. Uh in addition, they're proposing a retaining wall and drainage basin at the front of their property and uh some slightly expanded front entry columns with the stone veneer. Uh here is just some arrows calling out the different locations of the planters, the front deck and staircase, the

draining wall and or the rain retaining wall and drainage pit and the front columns. Uh here's some of the proposed materials for the new features. The uh fence gate uh the gate to the front is going to be this um wheat color. The deck would be Timbertech advanced fireresistant PVC um in a similar wheat color. Um the retaining wall um will have the stone at the top and then a stone veneer that's I don't believe shown here because I believe it's going to be a stone veneer with the kind of caramel stack stone look. Uh and then cable railing for the front deck. In addition, here's the proposed landscaping for the property. Uh, I've added three proposed conditions of approval to this project because I believe there's certain um features that don't hold up to our design guidelines/municipal code. The entry columns similar to the last uh project in a certain regard um are large columns that would have a stone veneer to them for this property. Um, I didn't think that the stone columns fit with the rest of the architecture and kind of stood out a little bit. So, I've added this condition of approval. If you think the columns are um appropriate, then this condition can be struck or modified um just based off of the rest of the property with the smooth stucco exterior. It might be more appropriate if they want to keep the large columns to have stone smooth stucco as opposed to stone veneer. Um for the landscaping, I wanted that prior to building permit submitt, they'd update their landscaping plan to make sure that it was 75% drought tolerant and native. the succulents at the front, while not visible because they'd be behind the front gate, seem inappropriate for Carmel. We don't really see succulents in Carmel often. Um, and then the decking, the PVC decking is something that I haven't personally seen approved. I haven't approved at a staff level or at the planning commission level, but correct me if I'm wrong. I know

composite, as we talked about on in the field, is something that I've seen more frequently for alternative materials for decking. Um, so I added in this condition requiring them to change the material prior to building permit submitt. Um, I was going into the recommendations, but earlier today we received correspondence from a neighbor um that had some concerns about the project. Uh they mentioned that there was a previous condition of approval, condition of approval 27 from the planning commission final resolution stating that any uh drainage should be 6 ft from property lines or from neighboring properties and the proposed gravel basin as shown on the site plan there is 2 and 1/2 ft from the east neighbors property line. Um, this isn't a typical planning requirement from me. So, I I don't have concerns about it besides the neighbor's concern and the condition of approval. So, if you deem that appropriate, we could require them to move it to a different location on the property. Um, if you think that it's acceptable, we can accept the um the resolution as presented without making any modifications to the conditions. Um, in addition, the neighbor raised concerns about the front deck. Um, and they had just some concerns about the deck. And the one thing that I saw that I hadn't addressed in my staff report was regarding to volume. Uh, the Carmel Municipal Code requires volume calculations for decks above 3 ft uh, above the ground. Um, we didn't get a good detail for the deck in the plans, but I went out there with a tape measure today to check the heights of it. There's one corner that it gets above 3 ft. Um, but for decks like that, you measure you do volume calculations for any portions that are over 3 ft. But there's also a stipulation that if the volume proposed would be less than 2% of the maximum allowable volume, you you can forego the volume study. I don't have the detail for it, but in my estimation, it would be less than that

2%. But if you guys have concerns about the volume of the deck, we can also continue the project and require a volume study. So those were good points raised by the neighbor. So, I want to make sure to uh touch upon them here. Um, in addition, they raised concerns about uh their fence, the rear setback, and the east wall. Um, choosing not to address those because the east wall is not being modified as part of this permit. The rear setback is not being modified as part of this permit and the fence in question is not part of this permit. So, um, I don't have any comment on those specific concerns from the neighbor. Um, but with that, I recommend that you adopt the resolution as presented by staff, modifying any conditions you see fit. I'm here for questions.

Question. Yes. Um, what does the gate look like? That's the detail we got. So, not a great detail. It's going to be a wood gate. That's not a gate. No. Uh, I believe the previous I think that's more for the color of it. I believe the previous plans that they have on file show what the gate is going to look like. Um, but they didn't provide anything in here. The only modification to the gate as part of this permit was the changing color. Was it an open design before or uh for the gate? I don't believe so. I can pull up the plans though to confirm.

Please do. Yeah, I was looking I mean that was the whole point of trying to see what the plans for. So,

okay. Um well you don't bit on that or you want to I'll look into this if you have any questions I can come back to you. All right. You have a question? Yes I do have a question. I don't know if you're the person to answer this. Um Mr. Olander about the the drainage basin and its location you know referring to the neighbors comments. Um that's a very narrow lot at 25 feet wide. There's only so many locations a drainage basin of that scale could actually be located. You mentioned that you don't

I mean who stipulates you said that there's a prior condition of approval. There was a condition that I found in the referenced um resolution from the previous design study uh that mentioned that I that I there was quite a few public hearings so I wasn't able to read over

all materials. So I'm not sure if it was something that was addressed due to neighbor concerns previously about drainage. Um I haven't seen any requirements to maintain base drainage 6 ft from any neighboring property. So I believe it would be project specific. Do you I don't Yeah. No, I don't I don't know uh specifically. More often than not at the planning stage, we're just looking at preliminary drainage plans to make sure that drainage isn't being uh funneled towards neighboring properties, but I haven't seen anything specifically about a catch basin um not being allowed to be close to properties. It's more something that building would look into if there's building code regarding that. Um, but I did want to mention it because I thought it was a an interesting point, especially since it was a condition that was approved by a planning commission resolution.

Well, agreed. And I'm more I'm more um concerned that the drainage is correctly designed for the topography of the site. Um, that matters more to me and that it's designed by a qualified professional. That matters more to me than um some subjective measurements. Um but is is the drainage part of what we're hearing today?

There is a new um retaining wall associated with this new drainage pit which I can show you um here you can see it at the front here. There's this retaining wall around the drainage basin here. So the retaining wall is more our concern. Um, I don't see the need for the retaining wall if we required them to move the drainage pit. So, they're kind of tied together. Um, but I don't think specifically the drainage. The only the only real concern would be the retaining wall and the previous condition of approval. So, if you wanted to approve the preliminary drainage plan in the retaining wall and have building confirm that it's allowed to be in that location, I believe that would be acceptable.

Um, condition of approval 30 on the landscaping. Could we as a possibility amend that to include in addition to drought tolerant native plants and um review of a drainage plan or something like that? We could um let me pull Does that make sense? I think we have a standard uh required drainage plan as part of the building permits submitt. So they they will have to get building to approve any drainage uh changes and have environmental compliance come review to make sure it's compliant as well. Perfect. Then I'm okay with that. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions? No.

All right. Uh is the applicant or the applicant's representative here?

Hello. Uh Alan Leman. Um uh uh I was asked by uh Miss Mardani to uh speak a little bit about a couple of the things on the project. I'm not uh heavily involved in this project, but um she reached out to me for um some advice and um uh consultation on uh some of the steps along the way, namely about the um uh you know, primarily about the uh the new deck and stairs and and how that would interact with their front door. Um but uh since then um when these other issues just came up that I've just learned about uh this week uh especially regarding the drainage um one of the things that was mentioned uh by her is that uh Valo um uh environmental compliance and public works um was with her in the design of of this location according to what she said. I haven't confirmed that with with Miss Go. Um but I'll follow up on that um to to verify. Uh one of the things about that drainage pit location um to move it would move it towards the downhill side of the h the the lot. Right now it's on the uphill side. Um, I know the uphill neighbor uh who's here is uh concerned about the location, but I do know that the water is not going in her direction um because it will flow downhill and that retaining wall is in essence serving as a directional barrier um for the drainage pit. So um they seem to be you know work they would work well in conjunction with each other to direct the water in the other direct in the other direction and possibly as I know from working on that

hill quite uh on quite a few houses um once we go down about 3 ft there's zero perk. So whatever is happening in that drainage pit is just collecting water. Um, it needs proper overflow and potentially a bubbler out at the at at the street. Um, every house I've worked on in that I've I've uh built about six houses in that uh small quadrant and um the soil is consistent um all all the way throughout there. Um 3 feet we hit clay and there's zero perk. Um in the house I'm uh uh building that we just discussed earlier. Um uh we dug a drywall pit. Um uh it sat uh full of water for a year. Um and uh I went back and that was one of the subsequent revisions was redesigning um to uh make that into a sump pump pit and pump out to a bubbler. Um it's the only way to remove water from from a site in that direction. Uh the decking material in question. So this uh is commonly what we've uh seen as uh composite decking. That's that's Timber um uh uh composite decking. If you look at their website, it's PVC decking. It is a composite of PVC decking. And that's not the exact color um that that she's proposing. But one of the things about the the Timberttech uh PVC line like this is it has a WOOI rating and not a lot of composite decking. The Trek Trex decking does not um from from my understanding although maybe they've gotten the WOOI designation recently. Um but that was a lot of uh you know I had

uh advised her in uh looking at the Timber products um for that reason. Um the other thing about this deck is as as you saw when you uh were on site it is invisible from the public rightway. Um it is it is well well concealed. Um, but just the same, I don't think the PVC name is uh a shiny plastic uh deck. Um, it's uh likely to be, you know, just that that sort of combed texture uh material. um which of course we can work with, you know, if it's acceptable, um uh and approvable at this meeting, um work with staff to to bring in samples and and make sure we have the right uh decking that's appropriate for the site. Um the uh the other item regarding the the volume and placement of the deck, of course, it will, you know, meet setbacks. Um uh their story poles seem to have drifted a little bit. They were not the strongest story poles that they put up. Um but uh the house is less than 3 ft from the uh on that on that corner is less than 3 ft from the property line. The deck is going to you know of course set in. So it does meet the the setbacks there. Um, and that's kind of all I have knowledge of on on the issues on the on the site. Um, unless there's any questions that I might be able to answer.

I don't have any. Do you have any questions? No. All right. Thanks, Alan. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I believe the neighbor is here. He's been waiting patiently for several hours now. Oh, I do actually have I think the attorney for the property owner who would like to speak. Oh, does she they want to speak? Christa. Oh, she wants to speak first. Oh, is is she with you or with the property owner? With me? Oh, my apologies. Her hand is raised, but you're welcome to. So, okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. So, my name is Katherine Carlson. I am the neighbor of Miss Mardani. My house is on the the corner of Ocean and Carpenter. So I um and chair Le Page have been following this project for about the last four or five years. It's gone through I've read 20 sets of plans on this project. It has changed so much over time. Um so I'm interested um in enforcing rules. I mean we have rules in this town and that's what we're all doing here. So setbacks. This is a small lot and the structure is nonconforming. So there have been lots of things happening and um I've brought up some of them previously but now this gravel basin you have the condition I didn't put it there you did. So the condition is that the gravel pit has to be 6 ft from neighboring properties and it's also a condition that I think was put in the approval or the um the what do you call it that you're supposed to sign today. So, is it still in there or have you changed that because it's condition 22 in the resolution that you are supposed to sign today saying that the gravel pit is 6 ft from neighboring properties. And you also have SG, I forget what that stands for, but you probably know 17-07. It states drainage and infiltration features shall be located at least 6 feet away from neighboring properties. So, this has been repeated three times. I also wrote to the city in January before the retaining wall was built um to alert them of this, but I didn't get

any answer. And so, I'm just reading the rules and trying to see that they are applied properly. So that's um you know I I think the drainage pit should be 6 ft away because that's the rule that you have imposed and the fact is that this retaining wall was built before having the approval. So you know I guess the drainage pit might also be built. I'm not quite sure but they need approval to do this before building it and they didn't get it. So that's the gravel basin. So for the deck, um I just want to be sure. Could you put up my slide? Does somebody have it?

We can't put up your slides, but they do have it printed in front.

Oh, okay. So if you look at the diagram that I made there, this is the way the property is sitting on the lot, right? It's crooked. It's non-conforming. So, it's exaggerated a little bit in my diagram there, but I just want to be sure that everybody is on the same page when this deck is being built because otherwise the deck will be built, you know, right even with the wall. But it shouldn't be because this wall is non-conforming and we all agree on that. So, I just want everyone to take note of how this deck should be built so that we don't run into problems later. which we have. So, we have run into problems with um with the treatment of the east wall and you probably see my slides there. So, the city, you know, first of all, the whole exterior of the wall was torn off and I don't think that's in dispute. But then the framing, uh, you know, it's it's questionable. It's a very borderline case whether 50% of the framing was removed or not. And you can see the photos there. And I've seen houses around town um where the old framing is still 100% in place because they know that they can't take it down without rebuilding to code. But in this case, um you know, the city inspected it and they made their decision based on these photos. But you can see the photos as well as I can. I don't think you can make a decision about whether 50% of the wall was torn down based on those photos. So, I'm just curious, you know, why the city doesn't, you know, do a real study when something like this comes up because these are the rules and we've been talking about them all day

and, you know, everybody knows them. So, this should have been done and, you know, I just want to make that statement. um it's too late now. Um um there there are a lot of discrepancies in these plans as well. So um the if you if you look at them, the lot adds up to being 102.5 ft long when it's only 100 ft long. So, you know, staff doesn't look at this, I guess, or, you know, it's just not portraying the project correctly, which is why I want to be sure that the deck is done correctly because, you know, the whole the whole thing does not add up and the plans are, you know, not very readable. I mean, at least I can't really figure out what they say and I don't know if anyone else can or if anyone looks at them because this is a very small project and you know, but it's been going on now for 4 years and there have been so many things happening. Um, so finally they have attached a hose bib to my fence. And I don't know whether this is legal, but um I asked the city. I did not get an answer, but I looked it up myself and I don't think it is. It's a plumbing fixture and it should be supported on the applicant's property, not on mine. Um, you know, she had they have treated my fence very I I mean, I don't think very well. I've pointed this out to the city. I've gotten no response. They practically dug it out of the ground. They've put nails in it, made holes in it. And I, Commissioner uh, Leidge was on my planning commission um, when I did this. And you know, I spent a lot of money redoing my fence and making it look nice the way it should. And I would like um first of

all, this hose bib plumbing fixture to be removed. And I would like my fence to be brought back to the way it was uh when this project was started. And oh, I have one other comment which is the enforcement of the fire code. So what happened was all of the windows and doors were installed in this property. They were inspected and approved by the city. Then then all of a sudden the city realized that they had not enforced the fire code correctly and the applicant was then made to replace two of the windows and a door uh to bring this up to fire code. And I mean for me that's very scary that the city is not enforcing the fire code correctly. I mean how can we really feel comfortable because you know fire is a real risk now. So, I just wanted to bring that up. And, you know, maybe you could change the process where you would be able to tell applicants in advance, you know, what are the fire requirements so that they can be sure to meet them because it's it's I think probably a timeconsuming and expensive exercise to have to comply after everything has already been inspected. So, thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Alan, you want to come up? Uh my apologies. I I uh forgot to mention on the uh entry columns um were originally approved at 18 in x 18 in square at 48 in high. I think uh I didn't measure vertically. Uh but I think they're they're that or less. They are smaller um uh in section. Um I believe it's they're 12 by 14 and they will not get clad in stone. they will uh get a smooth stucco finish. Um the gate uh material uh proposed would be a wood uh tongue and groove and so that

representation uh of a plywood panel is not accurate. Um uh that's all. Thank you. Okay. Uh doesn't look like anybody left here to comment on this. Oh, we got a hand up. All right. It is uh Christa Ostitch. Would you like to speak to us? Yes, I would. Go ahead. Okay. Good evening, Chairman L. Page,

members of the commission. My name is Christa Otoyich and I represent the neighbor Katherine Carlson. Uh Miss Carlson just gave what I thought were very thorough comments. So there's just one area that I would like to comment on and that is the infiltration gravel basin. And now we heard from both Miss Carlson and from Jacob that this condition requiring the basin to be 6 feet from the property line was in the original conditions of approval from the project. It's also in today's resolution as condition number 22 under the environmental compliance condition section. Now, the reason it's there in my understanding is because it's part of the city's storm water management system requirements. And it's also my understanding that those storm water management system requirements um are required as part of the city's NPDES permit as well as coastal act compliance. You can find that exact same requirement in section 1707 of the building safety division standard operating guidance. And so this wasn't just a condition that ended up there because of a neighbor's concern. This is a regular condition that should be on all residential properties in the city and it's required as part of the city storm water management system requirement. So, as we can all see, this drainage basin has been built within that ft. It isn't clear to me whether the entire basin has been constructed or just the retaining wall, but it is clear that when the last time your commission approved this project in September, there was no drainage basin on the plans. And so sometime between then and now, uh, the applicant plan constructed

this drainage. So, I I understand what the developer was saying about the percolation and the retaining wall and that in essence my client's property won't be damaged, but at the same time, I believe he said that due to the soils in that area, there should be a bubbler within the gravel basin. You know, I'm not a contractor, but I'm sitting here looking at the plans and it just doesn't look like there is any outlet to the street from that. And secondarily, the way the retaining wall is placed, I just wonder if water is flowing down from my client's property towards, you know, the ocean, how is it going to get into this draining basin with a retaining wall all the way around it? It seems like it's going to pull there. But either way, the condition is there both in the original project approval and in today's resolution. And more importantly, it's part of the city storm water management system requirement. And so it's hard for me to see how the commission can go ahead and and make the finding to approve this project as designed uh without revising the conditioning for Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anyone else? All right. I'm going to close the public comments open to the commission for discussion. Uh, can you bring that slide back up that had all your red? That way we can stay focused kind of. Yeah. Go through each. Switch screens, but we can go through each. Yeah. And then I did find the plans, but Commissioner Lock, you found them. Perfect. And then I did check the conditions of approval, and that is just part of the standard language for the drainage is the 6T distance. I hadn't looked into that before the meeting. Just hadn't had time. So, it is standard. Yeah. All right. Okay. And we checked some other projects. It's just on all of them. So,

uh let's see. There we go. Yeah. Okay. So, these these are the uh the issues in front of us, correct? Yes. There there's no no other ones that came up. No, I know I know the neighbor mentioned a lot of things

and I appreciate that, but some of them are kind of general concerns, I think, about fire safety and so forth, which which we're working on right now. We have a fire safety committee and the design traditions 1.5 where we're we're u trying to incorporate um objective fire standards which meet the requirements of the state into the revised design guidelines. So because we definitely want to move this this this community towards a a fire safe condition as much as we can. All right. Um so would either one of you like to begin? I will.

Okay. Good. Thank you. this time. Um, so I think that um since we've seen what the the gate looks like um that and that the applicant is proposing to do stucco on um the sides of it, no problem with that in my opinion. Um I don't have a problem with the deck and I guess the question is material. Um, obviously I think we're all very fire aware and I think that if that is a material that is um something that would be useful in that type of a environment that we should be supporting that um on the deck issue uh the neighbor mentioned the um alignment of the house on the property and if that's the case I think we do need to be sensitive to the fact that um that needs to be taken into consideration so that the setbacks and whatnot are correct on it. Um the retaining wall and drainage pit needs to be moved. So, and I think that was really isn't that all that we really needed to deal with on this one. So,

Commissioner Alburn.

Uh thank you, Chair. Um yeah, I agree with Commissioner Lach. I'm okay with uh amending uh the anti COA 29 the entry gate columns um to allow for the stucco coverage. I think that's great. I like the reduced size. I think that's more in proportion to the site itself. um for the condition of approval 31 on the decking material. I think that's awesome that there's uh wooi compliant new wooi compliant decking. I think that's actually an exciting discovery. Thank you for bringing that sir. Um, good to know. And I would support um so long as it meets staff um is I would give staff um the authority to review it for appearance so that it's in keeping with our design guidelines, but will be compliant. I think that's awesome. Um yes to the drought tolerant landscape in COA30. And as for the drainage basin and location, I don't know that it needs to be moved. It sure sounds like it needs to be moved. Um, you know, my position is that it needs to meet code, what whatever that code is. And it sounds like from what we've heard tonight, code is that it needs to be six foot. um any um drainage uh engineer, designer in in partnership with um our environmental uh tech right over in public works, we'll be able to figure out the correct location for that drainage basin. If that means that the retaining wall that I don't know if that was permitted or not, but if that means the retaining wall needs to come down, then it needs to come down. Uh, and yeah, that's all I got. Thank you.

Okay. I don't I don't have anything to add. Um, I agree with all that. So, we have a resolution and um I think they met they met the conditions of the uh the columns. Let's see. Prior to revise the proposed Oh, we're going to take that out. It's because it's it's going to be they're going to be stuck just the way they are. They're just going to have a finished stucco code applied to them, I assume, which is going to match the house. And the gate the obviously the deck has got to meet setback requirements.

Doesn't sound like the volume is really an issue and the decking. Yeah, it's Woo approved. That's what we're working on now is putting that into the u uh the new guidelines. And um I think the concern with PVC decking is it'd be shiny or something, but that obviously is a textured matte finish. And I'm not even really sure what composite means these days, tell you the truth. I mean I think we should and I bring that out. I don't you know mean to be facitious about it but what we should be focusing on is um the we uh you know classification and then also aesthetically what it looks like you know if it if it's not shiny reflective those are the things that we traditionally try to avoid any any of these materials that we are labeling composite that we're having to deal with now because we are moving away from uh natural the the word natural in in the guidelines We're we're we're just being pushed in that way because because of fire concerns primarily and um you know and we just we have to move into the new era which we're facing now with with the the the very real risk of of fire. I've heard today they've got fires in Georgia now. they've never had them this time of year and that's that's a huge uh you know hardwood producing area and um so they they it's it's really going to affect the industry there and they've got some wildfires that are out of control really early in the season because they they've been in an extreme drought situation which we know all about that. So, okay. Um, so I'll make a motion that we uh accept a resolution as per staff. We're going to eliminate um condition number 29 and we're going to eliminate um condition number 31.

Anything else? 22. 202 that through the chair that should stay. that requires the drainage plan to be consistent. Okay. Requires that's our standard. All right. Uh may I make one more suggestion? Please do. In the resolution, it states that the approval includes the retaining wall adjacent to the garage door. Based off of um deliberation, it sounds like the planning commission was not in favor of approving that retaining wall. So that should be omitted from the beginning and the end of the resolution. Yeah. Yes.

A second to that that that particular totally. I totally trust you. Okay. Uh is that good enough for staff as far as All right. Everybody. Yes. Yeah. And I second. You second. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Albornne. Yes. Commissioner Lock. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Okay. The motion is carried. Thank you, everyone. Thanks for hanging around. Is it?

Oh, you checked on. Yeah. Well, I just got a deck. I just designed a deck and wanted a trail walking view with that with that decking and they wanted specifically because it was buoy approved and they're right on the edge of the uh you know the Mission Trails Nature Preserve and they were worried about Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Okay. All right. The last item is the director's report. Do we have a director's report? We have a short one. Okay.

Okay. So, um, the housing element amendment second 7-day review period has ended as of 5:00 p.m. today. checked my been checking my emails. Have not received anything from the state yet, but um hopefully that will be coming soon. Um on May 19th, uh planning commission has a special meeting to um go over the odds for ADU. It'll be workshop style. So bring your questions. No, you have to be there. Okay.

Okay. Sorry.

Um at that time um as suggested from um Commissioner Alurn, we can also provide the the planning commission with a a short update of the work um that we have done so far in terms of housing element implementation. I'll work with Miss Waffle um on incorporating that in um either as part of the director's report or we'll figure out how to do that. Um it is late. We've had 13 items on this agenda. I feel like every planning commission we have gone until almost 10:00. So I want to acknowledge um any of community planning and building staff that is still awake at this time. I do want to acknowledge that you know planners planners are here um late building is here early code is out on Saturdays Shelby if she leaves I will be useless so I want to acknowledge um um our staff for all your hard work and your dedication um we're small but mighty and they are like ducks on water on top of the water they seem perfectly fine under the water they are pedaling. So I just wanted just wanted to say that

that's a great vision. That was good. Good. We'll make sure to put it on slides. Okay, we're done. Thank you everyone. AI videoath. trying to draw a cat.