Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

on the road here. We're waiting for, yeah, I guess we don't have to wait for Catherine. Hey, you behave yourself. You're short. You got a bad attitude. As you get short, that's it. You got a bad attitude.

Okay.

All right, everyone. We're going to start the regular meeting of the Carmel by the Sea Planning Commission. Can we have roll call, please?

Commissioner Albright. Here. Commissioner Karapetko.

Here.

Commissioner Locke. Here. Commissioner Ruth.

Here.

And Chair LePage.

Here. I want to welcome you all today. We are in the depths of June gloom. Okay. All right. The first item on the public, I mean, the agenda today is the public appearances. So any member from the public may address the planning commission at this time about any matters of municipal concern, which are not on our agenda tonight. I want to remind you that we are, all your comments have to be made in accordance with the Brown Act. So at this time, I'd like to invite anybody online or in the chamber that would like to address us about any items which are not on our agenda tonight. that you were concerned about in the city? Looks like nobody's concerned about anything. We're doing a great job. Any hands up online?

No, sir.

Okay, all right. Move on to the announcements. Any announcements from the public? Anybody? No announcements. All right, that brings us to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and do not require discussion or independent... Oh, you want an item pulled? No, I just wanted to... You want to make a public comment? Oh, come on up.

Hi, I'm Eric Dyer, and I'm on the board of AIA Monterey Bay, and I just wanted to remind people, if you don't know already, that July 18th is the Carmel Heritage Society AIA Monterey Bay Home Tour. And we're really privileged this year to have Elisana Dramov doing a lecture at the Carmel Foundation on 6 PM on Friday. Before that, the 17th, and that will be on. The whole theme of this year's tour is designing women. So great women designers of Carmel and architects of Carmel will be prominent. And Alessandra will talk to that. And then on Sunday at, I believe, 1 p.m. at the Carmel Foundation, there will be a screening of a Julia Morgan documentary. And we have at least two homes from Julia Morgan that are in our city level. So I hope everyone can attend that. You can go to AIAMontereyBay.org or CarmelHeritage.org to get your tickets. Thank you.

I got my ticket. All right, thank you, Eric. Okay, that'll bring us back to the consent agenda. As I said, items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and do not require discussion or independent action, but any members of the commission or the public may request an item be pulled for questions or discussion. We have a number of items tonight. We have item number one, the Monthly Activity Report from Planning and Building. Number two is the June 10th regular meeting for the minutes for the Planning Commission. Three is a Coastal Development Permit 26236. Then we have Design Study 25291. and then another design study 25234. And another one, design review, which is 26031. So, any members of the commission have any questions?

I have one comment on item, sorry, item number one. I noted that there was a large increase in the number of enforcement actions in June. And I was curious whether there is something going on that we need to be aware of or whether it's just a greater effort by the enforcement team.

I would say it's greater effort. We haven't really changed anything in terms of policies or procedures. Kind of luck of the draw, I think we had like 40 come in within a matter of days. They were busy.

So there wasn't really anything that stood out on any of those?

No, I would say the only thing that we've changed within the last couple of months is the two code officers walk around downtown in the morning, in the afternoon, just taking a look and seeing if there are any sandwich board signs that are not permitted. And that's pretty much the only change. Thank you.

Okay, any members of the public have any questions or want any item pulled? Anybody online? No, sir. Okay, in that case, I'm going to make a motion that we accept the consent agenda in one motion. Second. Okay, roll call, please.

Commissioner Alvord? Yes. Commissioner Karapetko? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Ruth? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Motion is carried. All right, that brings us to the Orders of Business. And tonight we have a report on the progress of the Design Traditions 1.5. Tom Ford is going to present that report to us.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, chair, commissioners, public. My name is Tom Ford. As Chair LePage said, I'll be giving another brief update on the residential design guidelines 1.5 process. This is about a five-minute long presentation. We're now three months into the expected four month long editing process. Our production team, the team that's tasked with getting this document through the finish line, continues with the same hybrid working model, small group work accompanied by or supported by individual tasks. FOR OUR SCHEDULE, THIS IS THE SAME SNAPSHOT OF OUR SCHEDULE. I HAVEN'T CHANGED IT SINCE LAST MONTH. THE THREE MONTHLY CYCLES THAT I WAS REFERRING TO IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT WE'VE COMPLETED, THAT'S APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE, OF COURSE, WE'RE STILL PROJECTING THAT THE DRAFT OF THE GUIDELINES WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE BY NEXT MONTH, AUGUST 12TH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. However, the question then arises of the editing, the graphic design, the layout that will be involved. So we had talked about our editor doing that work, doing their editing, layout, and graphic design concurrently. In other words, on the core principles that we've already substantially completed while we're working on the core principles that we have not yet completed. relatively obvious possible complications there. If we need to go back and adjust any of the wording, phrases, underline, indents, or whatever, or what have you, the editor would then need to go back and redo their work if we were to add in any words or phrases or anything. But I'm not advocating one position or the other, but we're going to work that out with our editor. But it may affect our timeline. But as I had said last meeting, when we originally set out this timeline, this was always our best case scenario. No one's holding us to going to council on September 1st. We want to, but should the need arise, particularly in light of the editor and graphic designer, then we would be able to accommodate extra time if needed. But we're really hitting a home run. As you can see in that bright fluorescent blue color, in the month of July, 14th, 21st, and 28th, we're going to be meeting the next three weeks. Those are three-hour-long meetings. We really run through a ton. So we're going to continue to be pushing full steam ahead. So where are we at regard to the major milestones relative to the calendar? On the screen, there's eight of the major milestones. We could say that five eighths of them are substantially complete. We're about halfway done through core principle four also. But the future small group meetings, those three of them later this month that I referenced will continue to address each of those remaining core principles one by one. And then the colors in red here are what we either are bringing this month or have brought to the Planning Commission. We had first gone over the Integrated Fire Resiliency Language. Last month we brought, I'm going a bit out of order here, last month we brought Core Principle 3. This month we attached to this agenda item is Core Principle 2. And essentially, today's staff is seeking feedback on the language contained in the updated core principle two, which again, that's the attachment to today's agenda item, and if there were any comments regarding core principle three. And that was the one that was, I actually should have attached that also to today's meeting, but it was the core principle that was attached to last month's meeting. I apologize, I should have actually put that as attachment two. And I'm going to summarize all these requests in my final slide. So those are two things we're looking for feedback or discussion on. Just a reminder that this was a question that we had had regarding should there be a size limit to permissible rooftop decks. I recall that folks had said they were interested in going back and doing some homework and I think it was Ms. Toomey who had suggested that staff go and look back at I think prior design studies that had the proposed rooftop decks. I was just reviewing my notes in preparation for this and I completely forgot to have requested that. So I called Jake and asked him if he'd be able to get that to all the commissioners a couple of weeks ahead of next month's meeting. Okay so within the next one or two weeks Jake had said he'd be able to do that. So that'll give, that'll give you time, that'll give you some data to go on. So you don't have to answer this question today, just wanted to prompt you with that. But the fourth kind of bullet point here is I was wondering if you would like us to start, you know, now that we're getting towards the end of the timeline here, the home stretch, I was wondering if you would like me to send you all, the commissioners, the core principles that are substantially completed as they are completed. In other words, I don't want to give, you know, I'm realizing that effectively right now I'm giving like four or five days for someone to review and you already have 10 other, however many other agenda items. So I just wanted to suggest that I start sending these out to you all weeks in advance just knowing it'll look prettier once I put it in. Hopefully it'll look better once I finally put it in next month's agenda item, but I at least could get the wording to you ahead of time. That's it. That's all I got. Happy to answer any questions, but those are the items that we're seeking feedback on.

Any questions for Tom? Got a question for you, Tom.

I, for one, would welcome getting these in advance. Yes, sir. That would be helpful. I do have a question about the graphics. I'm thinking this is probably going to happen during the editorial phase. And this is a comment I had made earlier when I was sitting in the meeting that they don't seem uniform in terms of where you're positioning the red, yellows, and the greens in terms of what's okay and what's not okay.

And

They should be consistent. My personal opinion is that the better choices should be on the right or the bottom as you work left to right, top to bottom. Okay. And I presume that's going to happen during the editorial phase, or the editor will make a different decision that will also make sense.

I think the answer is yes, it will happen during the editorial phase, and I think we'll propose what you had just said, going left to right with the correct one on the right-hand side and it being uniform. Great. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.

Thanks, Mr. Ford. Well done on the efforts. Thank you for the production team. One of my early questions was how much time are the commissioners going to be given to review some of these things? Because when we get our packets Friday at 5, it can be a challenge to be fully competent by Wednesday. So anything you can do in advance would be terrific. Noted. I appreciate that. Yes, ma'am. One comment. It's a personal question of mine, and that is, how is a city like Carmel, we have a staffing budget of about $15 million, and how is it that we don't have an employee classification that can manage document preparation, that can edit and layout and publish digital and print documents? That is a comment that I would appreciate being carried up because I'm sure this is only one of several documents that get published. Anna, were you gonna, Ms. Jeanette, comment?

Yes, through the chair. I will bring that up to the city administrator and assistant city administrator. I know we have a few positions that are management analysts, and I don't know if that falls under those job duties, but I can bring up your comment to them. I think it's very valid

Well, it makes good sense. And, you know, creating a style guide for the city and just then it really becomes a repetitive, simple function to publish anything. So that's simply a comment. Mr. Ford, in the attachment that you gave us, there were some yellow highlights. What did those indicate?

That's a great question. Those indicate notes that we wanted to save for ourselves in the future. They're usually... We've coded the document with keywords so that when it comes to the editing phase, we can type in, for example, everything that we wanted to ask the planning commission, we typed planning commission. So when we type that, we search the notes for that, and all of the notes, which are the ones that are highlighted in yellow, will pop up. So each of those, it's just our behind-the-scenes way of categorizing different items that we'll still need to address, most of which are sent to the editor. So a lot of these are editor. It would say editor word choice, editor phrasing, editor move to beginning of paragraph, that kind of thing. If there was something... There was not... I don't want to be incorrect with saying this. I went through the document and I don't recall any of them having a level of substantive issue that we would want to bring to the Planning Commission. So I'm inclined to say that all of the yellow highlights are our internal coding, word coding. I can't say that 100%, but I feel confident that that's the case in this one.

Well, thank you. Moving on to a broader question, and this probably perhaps needs to go back to the production team. And this goes to a state standard that recommends civic and government documents be written in a format that is easily understandable at an eighth grade reading level. And that's a standard that I've used in the past. And so it happens to be a lens that I look at documents like this through. And it may not be the city's lens, but it is one of my own experience. And the term subordinate as a verb is not a common usage today. And it absolutely is not in an eighth grade level. It's considered jargon, and it's considered college level. And so perhaps this is a comment that you could bring back to the committee to say, do you want to define subordinate as a verb? It is not common. Or do you want to consider rewording that? I realize that it's a whole category. but there is not a common understanding of what subordinate needs, definitely not at an eighth grade level. Understood. So that's a comment. That's excellent. In section 233, when installing driveways following existing grade, and then it goes on to use words like steep, tall, and massive. So my question is, would be, is there an intent to make these any more objective or is the intent to maintain that building element as a discretionary for the planning commission?

If I may ask, do you happen to recall, is that one of the ones that we had tagged as objective or subjective?

It's highlighted in yellow.

Yeah. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T, I SHOULD HAVE HAD THOSE COMMENTS. I DON'T RECALL. THANK YOU, JAKE.

IF I COULD JUST ADD TO THAT, CHAIR. I THINK IN GENERAL, THE GOAL IS BECAUSE THESE ARE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT ARE particularly apply to and track two design approvals, there is a subjective review. So to make the document completely objective, that is not part of the mission. To clarify, totally is. I don't know if that helps answer your question.

Well, yes and no. I recognize the value of discretionary guidelines. It's simply a question. This is the time to ask the question while we're in the midst of an update. So I'd be interested in the production team's feedback on that. And I have another example of that.

If I may ask, Commissioner, do you think that in this case, going off of what Anna had said, Do you think in this case of 2.3.3 that we're allowing enough subjectivity? It's a gray line. trying to decide how much to be very defined and objective, and where to leave. But if you're too prescriptive, then it's very fine mandates, and it doesn't allow for the creativity that we want. So we're looking for that middle ground. Do you think that this is overly subjective?

I think it's highly subjective. The phrase ramp effect, I think, could use a definition. I know that it's commonly understood with people that have a great deal of experience in urban planning. Many of our property owners don't. And I would like these to be available and usable to our property owners as well as our experienced architects and contractors, that sort of thing. And I do have another example on the next page where it talks about, this is 2.4, I believe. It talks about intimate paved areas. So I could definitely use help with that. I'm not sure how I could make a paved area intimate. So maybe that could use a yellow highlight. And one other comment, my last one for you. Section 256, that's on our page 180. It says 256, it begins with, in rare cases where a fence is needed. I don't know, I think fences are pretty common in Carmel. So I could use some help with that one too. It's also highlighted in yellow.

Yes.

So that ends my comments. Great, great effort. I would love the opportunity to have the latest copy of each of what you consider completed or near complete drafts, if that would be possible to receive by email or appointed with the link, that would be great. And that ends my comments, so thank you.

Thank you. It's exactly what we're looking for. Thank you very much. And yes, whatever I send out will be sent out to all the commissioners as well at the same time. It's extremely helpful. Thank you.

Okay, we are going to have a discussion, kind of go over this particular core principle. But if you have any comments right now that you want to give to Tom, because he can relay those to the team, you know, that was a good time to do it. You know, we can, you know, I'm just kind of... suggesting maybe change the format a little bit. Usually I ask for public comment and bring it back, but you know, Tom is sort of the, as the project manager, he's the one that's going to bring this information back. And then Jake, of course, too, he's taking notes. So I just encourage any of you to make your comments right now directly to Tom or Jake, if you have any about this particular core principle number two.

I looked up 2.33. We had two comments. Neither was specifically objective, subjective, but there is some debate on that specifically. So it's something we're, I think we're still looking at a little bit. And then I just wanted to confirm which ones you had brought up. I have 2.33, but I wanted to make sure I got the other two.

Let's see. There was a 2.56 and then 2.4 is subordinate all paved areas, designing them to be small, informal, and intimate. Perfect.

Thank you. Only one comment on the, I guess, is the principle number three, fit in the context of the neighborhood. I would love... the team to also look at the old mission truck neighborhood that was annexed later in the 60s or 70s. I remember reading the copy of the annexation agreement and it says that that neighborhood is different from the one square mile. And it mentions that it is not so much village in the forest, but it's a sunbelt with wider streets and more of a what did I say, subdivision feeling. So I know that a lot of my neighbors in that part of town are very concerned when they read design guidelines in general that they do not recognize their environment in the design guidelines. So they are very confused when they apply how do they meet these requirements. And actually I had a meeting with some of my neighbors in March or April, I think it was April, And a lot of them were looking for ways to remodel their properties. That whole area was built in the 50s mostly. And the houses are now 70 years old. A lot of them require maintenance and remodel. So they did ask me as a member of the planning commission how to approach that. And I promised to look into it and kind of make sure that when they submit remodeling projects, we kind of consider that a little bit different character of the neighborhood. Okay.

That's a great point. We'll have to take a look at the agreement, the annexation agreement. Thank you. Thank you. That's excellent.

Okay. Any other comments for Tom or staff? All right. Thank you, Tom. And I just wanted to say, this project is moving along. We're making a lot of progress. And really, on both sides, it has to do with Tom, the fact that he's a project manager. And he's really laid out a very rigorous schedule for us, which we're following. And so we're really making good progress. But it has a lot to do with the fact that we have a project manager, and we have a project manager who's really doing a very good job. So thank you, Tom. Appreciate it. Okay, I'm going to open it up to public comments. Anybody from the public want to make any comments on this particular core principle or the design guidelines review process that we're in and just in general?

Eric Dyer local architect. I thought I think it's really important that the Planning Commission is getting into all this content and I think Commissioner Auburn's idea of getting this ahead of time and spending as much time as possible going over it in detail is really important because this we're gonna be living with this for the next 10, 20, 30 years. So I think it's nice to spend a little time and get it right. I'll just make my few comments on chapter two. I also like the way it's kind of broken into these bits that you guys can take and can focus on rather than all at once, which I think can be quite overwhelming. So in the, I think I'll go to 2.2. I just want to make clear as coming from the architect's perspective, there are a lot of parameters that define how we build, mostly defined by the code. And in terms of building size and height, You know Carmel is one of the few jurisdictions where they actually define height measuring from any point up from grade. And so that is in terms of keeping the scale of buildings down very helpful. So on sloping sites you can't just have one average natural grade like you do in all the unincorporated areas of the county and go across at 30 feet or whatever it might be. So that in that invites and incentivizes the stepping of buildings down lots. And in 2.1.2, that's defined, I guess, and encourage that that happens. I think sometimes it gets a little bit, the more you just keep adding to the requirements for designers, it can become Like, for example, I just finished designing a new house, which hopefully you'll be seeing shortly, that was on a slope. And because of all these requirements and the way that our staff is now defining underfloor areas and things, it became almost a math problem because you move one thing a certain way, then it affects something else, and you have to shift this. And so... The House ended up, I mean, I think it turned out very nicely, but I could barely shift anything. Otherwise, something else would go out of whack. So it became difficult that way. So I would just encourage the guidelines and the Planning Commission, as it reviews it, to err on not adding things that seem maybe not necessary, especially if they're already taken care of by general ordinances and design standards that are in the code itself um so one of the things is just like making a subjective stat uh comment about a 2.1.2 avoiding above ground and floor areas and then it says avoiding extensive cantilevers especially over excavated areas i don't really know how that applies so little examples like that um I don't think are necessary because you are already pinned in by first story heights, second story heights. And again, those are defined by heights from grade at any point. The other thing I would look at is 2.2.3. where it does, again, talk about large underfloor spaces being part of floor area. This comes up to the definition of what's an underfloor space that has been kind of figured out by, as staff, I think, trying to understand the code and interpret it as best they can. And it's just not as clear as it should be. For example, there's something in the current guidelines that talk about height from grade to top of floor. And it says that needs to be within five feet, or everything under that is floor area. And that means you could have a three-foot crawl space, and that's going to be counted as floor area, based on whatever the structure is, and on a sloping even more complex. So I would encourage, before, you know, I've been around Carmel for a long time, those, the heights for floor area, what we counted as floor area was basically five feet in height. And that seemed reasonable. But if you have sort of floor areas that are just, you know, three feet or four feet, I don't know how you can define that as floor area. So just little things like that I think are important to keep in mind. I will throw in another application, which I know staff is, I think has some agreement on is This is in 2.3.2 in the parking area. It talks about, or maybe is that where they talk about the detached garages? I think parking pads should be allowed in setbacks. They may have an exception for that because they're less massive. I know on historic houses, for example, you have You want to try to avoid having larger structures that would be added in front of an historic resource and as viewed from the public right of way. So I think that's another interesting exception that can be done. And again, we are have the ability within this general plan update that will, or amendment that will go through and go to the Coastal Commission to attach ordinance changes along with the guidelines. So having that all combined together, I think making all these reasonable changes at once, and I think would be the most efficient way to do it. And then I would just, I think Commissioner Auburn's comment about the heights of, retaining walls and ramps, especially for driveways, is a really good one because it's very subjective because one of the guidelines talks about, oh, it's nice to subordinate the garage and partially lower pole grade. I think the resistance to or the tall retaining wall issue on driveways comes from a few examples in town where you actually have literally underground, as defined by Carmel, which is floor has to be within one feet of grade. So it's really an underground garage, which creates a really intense, steep ramp. So I could see that maybe defining that a little more objectively in that case, so that it's simple garages where you're encouraging them to put them partially below grade. And then by necessity, they're going to have to have some retaining walls you don't get a confusion about whether that's too tall or not. I think my comments about section number two, thank you. Thank you, Eric. Appreciate those comments.

Okay, anyone else from the public that would like to make any comments about the core principle number two? Any hands up online?

No, sir.

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the Commission. Any further thoughts? Okay. I think all comments are good, and I'm sure staff has written those down, so we'll be looking at that in our next meeting. All right. Then we will move on to the next agenda item. Actually, the next agenda item are the public hearings. Okay. First item on the public hearings is number eight. This is a design study, DS-26081, P&T 2024 LLC is consideration of final design study and coastal development for demolition of existing single-family residence and detached garage. And it is located to northwest, it's on 11th Avenue to northwest of Torrey Street. So can we have staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair. I'll be bringing you the P&T 2024 final details proposal. As you may recall, this is a large 1,300 square foot lot. It's in a regularly shaped lot. Because of an area of steep slopes, the buildable area is reduced to approximately 1,100 square feet. Excuse me, 11,000 square feet. There is an existing residence and detached garage proposed to be demolished. And the applicant is proposing a new 3,523 square foot single-story residence inclusive of a 473 square foot attached garage. This property is located in several overlays. It's in the R1 zone, the park overlay, the beach riparian overlay, and the archaeological significance overlay. During the concept hearing, we discussed each of these overlays in detail. So Unless it's requested, I won't go back through each of the findings required for the overlays. This is our topo map where the forester has indicated all of the trees. And the commission did have several conditions of approval at the concept hearing listed here. The applicant has responded to all of the concept conditions. They've passed the volume study, revised the landscape plan. The applicant did coordinate with the Friends of Mission Trail and received their approval of the proposed landscaping. You'll see there's five redwoods proposed for private property, and the applicant is intending to further collaborate and do plantings in the park as well. You'll see a few conditions here that are carryovers that are required regarding raptor and migratory bird nesting, essentially limiting construction to certain times of the year to protect the birds. There's a standard archeological condition for any projects in our archeological overlays. The applicant has revised the project to comply with the setbacks as directed by the commission. If you recall, there's a 30 foot environmentally sensitive habitat area setback from the little creek. And so the project has since been pulled entirely out of that 30 foot ESHA setback. They are, the applicant is proposing to do a bridge foundation within the root zone of tree number nine. So no issues there. The forester has approved that. And then the commission did request a revised building form and footprint. So apart from how I described moving out of the ESHA zone, the applicant also altered the proposal. You'll see in the middle of the screen, previously the attached garage was attached to the house at an irregular angle and that has been adjusted. So now we have all right angles. Otherwise the footprint is generally an irregular U plan with a central courtyard. The applicant additionally did make all of the roof pitches consistent as requested and revised the fenestration to bring down the doors to seven feet and otherwise adjusted the windows to be more consistent throughout. And so staff does not have any further special conditions that aren't discussed here. Here, You can see the existing on the left-hand side of the screen, the concept proposal in the middle, and then the revised elevations on the right-hand side of your screen. So you'll notice the south elevation no longer features arch openings at the garage. And there's a few other slight adjustments there to the entry. And then the north elevation, again, you see the change in the garage orientation. I'll pause here so you can look at the west elevation and the parkside east elevation. And we can return to these during the discussion as needed. And the courtyard views. And then here are just the door and window schedules. But again, the applicant did comply with what the commission requested. There have not been changes to the finished materials, which were included in the concept packet. They did change the driveway gate from a metal to wood. And this will be conditioned to be four feet high, just like a normal fence in the front setback. And that concludes my presentation. Staff does recommend adopting the final details proposal. Accepting.

Okay, questions for staff? All right, thank you. Okay, at this time, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward, make their presentation.

I'm Cindy Scarlett, the architect for the project. Nice to see you. And I want to say thank you, Catherine, for all the time you've spent on this. This has been an ongoing, long project. I know you've spent a lot of time on it. So thank you for everything. Yep. So hopefully you guys will see that we have made all the changes that you have suggested at the concept meeting. And Pierre is very willing to work with the friends to increase or take out the non-native landscape and put in some nicer plants there and the whole process. area there between will be a lot nicer now with the native plantings that he's proposed and The other changes they the roof pitches and everything else we've complied with so I think it's turned out to be a really nice design And I hope you guys agree that it's a good fit for the neighborhood Do you have any questions questions for the architect?

Okay, thank you, thanks All right, any members of the public that would like to make any comments on this application that come forward at this time? Any hands up online, Shelby?

No, sir.

Okay, I don't see anybody coming forward. I'm going to close the public comments, open up to the commissioners. Commissioner Locke, do you have a... Comments?

Sure, I'll start. I'm really pleased with how this has come out, and I think that the revisions obviously have made it a better project. The concept of the trees in the park area that will screen the property and landscaping, it's really nice to see it morph into what is just a classic really nice design for such a and it's a big house too so um yeah i'm really pleased with this and i think the grape state driveway gate also is an improvement over the other ones anyway thank you very much that was great okay commissioner ruse your comments um so i'm new so i don't know the long history of the of the preparation of this project i do know that um

I appreciate the sensitivity given to the park and to the sensitive habitats there and really appreciate that the project has been very responsive to input from the Mission Trail Park folks. I walk through that park very frequently and I look forward to seeing a prettier house there. Thank you.

Commissioner Albert, your comments?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to commend Ms. Scarlett and the property owner. This commission will make many comments, and we often create sets of special conditions. And they're not always heated. And not only did you listen so closely to everything we were requesting, but based on the new renderings, you've incorporated those suggestions in a stunning way that I think is going to pay it forward for not only the property owner, but also for the adjacent Mission Trail. And I concur with Commissioner Locke and Commissioner Roos. I'm grateful that you were so willing to work with the friends of Mission Trail and to pay such close attention to the ISHA that's very, very important to Carmel and that overlay zone My one comment would simply have to do with the condition of approval 37, and that's the one that talks about the bridged foundation. We frequently speak to being careful around root zones that are six feet in diameter, and here we're talking about nine feet. So just simply raising that awareness that we're not speaking about our standard six feet that we often do, but this is a nine foot a condition of approval. But other than that, I'm delighted with what you've brought before us. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Karapetkov, your comments, please.

Yeah, I wasn't here in the meeting in May when this was discussed for the first time. So that's the first time I see the project and cannot comment on the improvements. But actually, I like what I see in the current version of the project. It is challenging to build a 3000 plus square foot house and not make it look like massive. So this one does a good job in splitting the mass across. I could come five buildings, like a five building blocks attached to each other. So it looks really like a group of smaller buildings with a synchronized external appearance. I think that's a very good approach, making sure that it doesn't really look like a one massive house. And also the, in our courtyard helps as well, especially in that part of town where the light, I think, is a problem because it's kind of in the middle of the wooded area. I think it's important to have this courtyard so that you can bring light into the different rooms in a natural way. We have seen other projects where the problem is solved by skylights. And I'm glad that we are solving the problem here in a much more elegant way with a courtyard So yeah, overall, I'm pleased with the current state of the project. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, this house's location is very unique. Its proximity to the Mission Trails Preserve and the sensitivity of that made it challenging. And I really appreciate the fact that the applicant and their architect, they made the changes that the commission requested. So we have a resolution per staff for approval. I don't see any changes we need to make to it, so I would make a motion that we accept the resolution as per staff.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please.

Commissioner Althorne? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov? Yes. Commissioner Luff? Yes. Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. The motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to item number nine on the public hearings. This is a design study DS-25019, the McWhorter Project's consideration of a final design study, coastal development for demolition of existing single-family residence and the construction of a a two-story home, and inclusive of an attached garage, and it's located on Carmelo Street. Can we have a staff report, please?

Good afternoon, commissioners. We're back again to talk final design study for the McWhorter project. I will just go right into it. 3,900-square-foot lot, the applicant's proposing... That might be flipped. Proposing to demolish the existing house and rebuild a new house with a 750 square foot ADU. At the concept design hearing, we had some conditions of acceptance that needed to be addressed. Volume we will look at later in the presentation as it's a more in-depth discussion. Tree evaluation was incorporated into the plans for the fence. Details added to the plan and condition of approval number 36 requires that prior to building permit issuance, they add a note to the detail about the material of the fence and to include some spacing between the fencing in the front setback to have that filtered light view as required by the design guidelines. The other three conditions involved windows and doors. As part of the remodel to pass volume after the concept, they reduced the size of the entry window and added two kitchen windows on the side of the property, the north side. There's been no issues with those windows. The one point that I wanted to get feedback from you guys on was the great room door at the front of the property. It's currently two set of slider doors that are 12 feet wide. which seems quite large and it's very visible from the street. So I've added a condition of approval number 34 requiring the great room doors be no wider than six feet. That would still give them basically double the width of your standard door to have the two sliding doors there, but not have them as wide and grand visible from the right of way. In addition, they've also adjusted their skylights from originally it was one quite large, I think three feet by ten feet, and then it was two, three by three, six, and now it is three, three by three feet, six inches, and now it is two skylights that are two feet by four feet, which is a more typical skylight dimension that we see in town. And then finally the roof deck privacy this was an issue with the that has come up several times and you've seen Correspondence from the neighbors and concerned residents regarding the privacy and view impacts to the neighbors to the east of the McWherter project to address these concerns the applicant has reduced the size of the walkable area of the rooftop deck and by increasing the size of the planters. And then they've adjusted their privacy kind of partition screen that they have up there from a semi-transparent, you know, it was a metal partition that had holes in it so you could still kind of see filtered views. And now it's a solid wooden fence. And we'll get into that in a little more detail when we're talking about volume. So here's what the design looks like. On the left is the existing home, on the right is the proposed home. You can see the great room doors there, front and center above the garage. So fencing, I just wanted to go into a little more detail on these things. They provided the details. I just want them to call it out as wood because I believe in conversations with Eric Miller Architects, it is going to be a proposed wood fence. And then to increase the slot, the spacing between the slots to a minimum two-inch gap just to create a little more filtered view so it's not just so blocked off at the front. The skylights, as you can see, originally there's a couple of small skylights there. They proposed the three, three foot by three six that I discussed. And now they're down to the two foot by four foot skylights. So it's a little bit more in line with what we see typically in town. Here's the great room door. You can see it's kind of two large sliding doors. And I did a screenshot, a little snippet from the door schedule. So you can see it's 12 feet by seven six. from eight feet down to seven six as previously discussed the homeowner is quite tall and is six eight so the six eight doors we typically see at the facades of a building is a little small for someone of that stature so the applicant said they reduced it but they thought seven six was a reasonable combination so in the condition of approval that i'm proposing i'm not I didn't include reduction of the height at all, but just to reduce the width, just to make it a little bit less prominent. You could still have quite a large expanse of glass that fits with the architecture, but just a little bit more modest. Now we can talk roof deck and volume. In March, the project pass volume is just under the allowable of a little over $19,000, and the proposed was $18,000. That didn't include the rooftop deck above the ADU. At that point in time, we weren't calculating the rooftop decks above ADUs in our volume calculations. but then in the April meeting with the planning commission, the planning commission denied the rooftop deck on the diamond project. So we've determined that there is some discretionary authority over those rooftop decks besides just the design of the deck itself, but we can apply volume standards. Um, so, uh, because of that, um, We are kind of at an impasse currently because the rooftop deck, the neighbors to the east would prefer that the deck be shifted to the front of the property. That would require a new volume study and almost assuredly the property would not pass volume if there was a new volume study involving that rooftop deck. There is also a little bit of a. Something to consider. Currently, as proposed, the parapet of the ADU itself is the de facto guardrail of the rooftop deck. So by removing the rooftop deck, you would not actually be reducing the volume on site because it's currently the parapet is going to be there regardless. So the volume that would be calculated for the rooftop deck is It's more the sticking point right now is going to be the privacy and view concerns. But if you guys want to make a ruling on volume, I have three options and I'm requesting your input on that. In addition to that, you can see the changes they've made to the deck, expanding the planters to reduce the walkable surface and kind of tuck it back to the backside of the property in an effort to make it less visible from the property to the east. The three options that I've proposed in the staff report, but obviously I'm open to any suggestions from you guys, would be project was deemed complete before we made these new rulings on how we're processing rooftop decks above ADUs, so no additional volumes required, and that the rooftop deck changes sufficiently address the privacy and view concerns, so no action would be needed on the rooftop deck and the project can be approved. The second option would be to require a new volume study for the rooftop deck and we would continue the project or The third option is that the rooftop deck it is a discretionary decision. It's not part of the ADU you could say that it has Too large of an impacts of privacy and views to the neighbor to the east and require it to be removed And you could still approve the project just with the condition that prior to building permit issuance The rooftop deck is removed as part of the project So those are the three options I've presented, but we're open to any creative solutions you may have. With that, I'm recommending adoption of the resolution as presented by staff, and I'm open to any questions.

So Jake, let's talk about the deck a little more. So it had a volume study, and It meant the volume, but that was because the rooftop deck was not counted in the volume study.

Correct.

So if the deck is left where it is now, and for some reason a new volume study, then the rooftop deck is going to be counted in the volume study? And so the issue about the parapet wall, so you're saying that regardless... the parapet wall is going to make that count as volume?

The issue with this is that the ADU, because of the state exempt ADUs, cannot be, we can't make discretionary decisions about floor area for these state exempt ADUs, and volume is kind of an extrapolation of floor area. That's how we calculate volume. So we don't apply volume standards to ADUs specifically. So If, for this situation, they've removed the rooftop deck entirely, the volume on the site, calculatable, would be lower, because we're not counting the deck, but in the actual built environment, it would have the same mass and bulk and volume, because the parapet of the ADU is the de facto guardrail.

So it doesn't affect the volume. Your point is it's just the same amount of mass.

It's the same amount of mass, exactly.

But it doesn't affect the volume study. Okay, I just want to eliminate some of these issues so we don't have to deal with every little thing that isn't required.

Go ahead. And I didn't remember... The Planning Commission hearing about a rooftop deck for the project on scenic with the diamonds, I believe that that rooftop deck was removed before we heard their ADU case. Am I not remembering this correctly? Exactly.

You can just say it. So initially the project, the diamond project, the proposal did include a rooftop deck. It was staff's recommendation to deny the rooftop deck of the ADU. Midway prior to the hearing, I believe it was after the staff report was already produced, the applicant changed their mind and stated that they removed it.

But that's very different from the planning commission denying a rooftop deck on an ADU. We did not even hear or vote on denying. And we approved one, was it just last month? We did not look at the volume of a rooftop deck on top of an ADU. And it was approved. And it was in the beach riparian zone. And we approved that project.

That was the other one that was also on scenic? Yes, ma'am. Brown, formerly Brown? Mm-hmm.

And I brought up volume, and I remember, because I'm still a freshman here on your commission, and I remember being instructed that volume wasn't, that rooftop decks were not being included in volume, so that was not a reason for, to turn down the rooftop deck on that project.

Yeah, we walked through that pretty specifically.

Didn't we?

We did, yeah.

Yes.

And I don't understand. Like I said, the way I remember the diamond project, they removed the rooftop deck.

We did not do that.

So I don't understand how it can be stated by staff that we made a policy change regarding volume and rooftop decks.

That one is on me.

So it wasn't that project?

No, well, that was...

It was the other project that Commissioner Alborn is referring to, which I don't... No, no.

Staff's position in looking at rooftop decks differently when we compared Diamond to this particular... project, it was under my direction that, you know, we are starting to look at them differently because we do have an ability through our LCP. So for the record, that should be cleared up, but it wasn't the planning commission's decision for, you know, staff is now looking at rooftop decks above ADUs differently. It would be THE DIRECTOR'S DURING.

SO IT WASN'T THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WAS THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION. GETTING OLDER THAN I AM, NOT REMEMBERING. THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, I THINK.

IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE CAN CORRECT THAT RECORD BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND AGAIN, I'M THE FRESHMAN, SO, YOU KNOW, SET ME STRAIGHT. WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH CONCERN ROOFTOP DECKS. WE DO NOT HAVE A POLICY IN OUR GUIDELINES OR IN OUR CODE THAT that provides specifics. Whether it's a very discretionary approval. Would that be accurate, Chair?

Yeah, rooftop decks are allowed. I mean, I don't have all the code right in front of me, but they are allowed at this time. There is some discussion in the process of redoing the design questions about rooftop decks, and we're trying to come up with some more objective standards. So that because this is a very, it's a recurring challenge for the Planning Commission and because of just the inherent nature of the impacts of a rooftop deck. So, but at this time, you know, we have to go by, you know, what is the current policy? What is the current ordinance? So, but so we've, I think we've had the, I've had my questions answered. clarifying the volume and the parapet wall. So are there any other questions?

Yeah, so I'm, again, relatively new to this. Regarding the comment about whether, I guess, one of the things we're struggling with is whether a rooftop deck above an ADU is part of an ADU. It seems to me it is not because it's not inside the ADU. So if it's not part of the ADU and we're questioning whether we include a volume calculation here or not then it strikes me as occupiable outdoor space that is part of the structure and I'm sure that volume is a term of art that I'm not deeply familiar with yet. But in this same space, I mean the applicant could have built a two-story house that would occupy all of this space, correct? Theoretically, if the concern is view being blocked or whatever?

They could have built the two-story as long as it met the height requirements in certain areas. They still would be subject to the view and privacy concerns. So if they had built a two-story structure in that location and it was blocking views, that is something that you would have discretion to rule on.

Okay. So is it fair to say that in terms of our discussion today, we're really considering the privacy and view issues as opposed to the volume issue? I want to understand that.

Well, there's two issues. I mean, I think the tailor's concern is the impacts to them. If I'm, I don't want to, you know, not completely state everything, but that's been my impression of what they're concerned about. The volume thing is kind of a technicality. I mean, as I understand, you kind of see, you know, if the ADU is not there, and that deck was there, an elevated deck, it would count as volume, right?

Yes.

So we can't consider the ADU. And as Commissioner Rue said, it's not part of the ADU. Correct. It doesn't count as floor area of the ADU. Correct. So it seems, in that case, it does come under the Planning Commission's discretion. That's clear. Definitely, yes. Okay. I guess I don't understand why it wasn't counted as part of the volume, because it would have been if the ADU was there or not, it wasn't there. It just seems to me the ADU doesn't really have anything to do with the deck, or does it?

This is, and pardon my misunderstanding of the diamond project earlier, but this is what I was trying to build upon on that was that we've had a change in the way that we've been processing these rooftop decks as opposed to they weren't being included in volume when they're above ADUs. Now we've determined that they should be as basically effectively cantilever decks over nothing. But since this project had already passed volume and was accepted before that shift in the way we were processing these things, we presented the option of not requiring another volume study, or if you guys think it would be appropriate, requiring a new volume study. So the volume is still something to consider here. It's just a... It becomes a moot point if the privacy and view concerns are such that you think the deck should be removed altogether.

Okay, all right. Any further questions for staff? All right, this time I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and make their presentation.

My name is Eric Miller. I represent the project as the architect. Can we put up my PowerPoint, please? Tell me when you're ready. I think there's a laser timer. There it is. Okay. Okay, here's the timeline for this project. We started the project in 2025 in January. And after 279 days, we got concept design approval, which to me means that the basic concept has been approved and we're looking at fit and finish for the final approval. So after we got concept design approval, we were asked to do a volume study, which we did. So we feel like we've done that. And this project has been looked at and voted on already relative to that. So if you look at the overall timeline, now we're 516 days into the project, and I'm hearing for the first time that you might change your mind on the volume study that we already did, somewhere around 279 days. So the tailors have been working with us for that orange line, that black line, somewhere around 300 days on this thing. And, you know, we feel like, you know, we haven't been able to make any progress with them. The only thing they are willing to accept is they offered my client a million dollars more to buy the house. They're fine with that. If my client would sell them the house, which he doesn't want to, or the other option is to just get rid of the roof deck. So they aren't willing to make any compromise beyond that. But my presentation will show you that in fact we've been careful, thoughtful, and considerate relative to the overall privacy light and air design study guidelines and everything. So I think we'd be able to demonstrate that. So at the last hearing, they've gone through two landscape or two land use attorneys. And the most current one said there have been no roof decks approved in the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. She didn't look closely enough or didn't spend the time to do it. But three of these are rooftop decks that we did. And the fourth one is one we found. And that is over in ADU, by the way, number four. So it's precedent. It's within the time we've been making the application. I mean, 500 days is a long time to be working on something like this. Rules can change. And, I mean, if we keep going forever, then we'll have new design guidelines and we'll have to fall under that. So since the last... Hearing we've broken up the glass with mullions and buttons, we did lower the transom 7-6 so our client could work underneath there. But we really only have a six-foot sliding door, so the six-foot center is a sliding door, and the two flanking spaces are windows, so that's glass, not a sliding door. And, you know, we... We also, as staff said, reduce the skylight, that sort of thing. So here's the deck everyone's been talking about for 10 months. The stair is designed on the right-hand side there, so nobody can see it from the Taylor House. Even the upper floor, you can't see the stair. So complete privacy there. So that's the stair right here. I think this works, yeah, right here. So the idea is you walk up the stair. Here's the tailor hedge. This is our hedge. There's a wooden screen here. So you walk up the stair here, and you're up against a seven-foot hedge, which gives you complete privacy from the tailor view on the upper level. On the main level, tailors can't see any of that. The only place you'd be seen here from the upper level is if you're standing next to this grass, because as you move away from this wall, you could see this grass. But we originally had another screen here to block any view at all from the Taylor master bedroom. Linda and I had talked about that, and Bruce said that he didn't want it, so I took it out. And so the other thing I want to point out is we talked about, we had a 588 square foot deck here last time. The planning commissioner, one of the planning commissioners said that he thought it should be somewhere around 15 by 30. So we went on YouTube to make sure that, so timestamp 255.57. A COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDED THAT. SO THEY SAID $450. BUT WE'RE PROPOSING $393. AND ANOTHER COMMISSIONER SUPPORTED THAT ALSO IN THIS TIMESTAMP. SO LAST TIME DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS 15 BY 30, AND WE'RE PROPOSING A SMALLER DECK THAN THAT, $393. We also moved the planter. We made that larger here. So that five foot planter gets this deck five feet further away. So this is already four feet from the property line. So they're nine feet from the property line. Most fences are directly on the property line. So we think that helped. And then the wooden fence helps with any kind of sound mitigation along with our hedge and their hedge. So we think we've done everything we could to mitigate the sound. There we go. So the Taylor's house is right here. Very large compound for Carmel. They want to buy our property, which my client doesn't want to sell. that's one solution they have, and the other solution is just get rid of the deck. So we think, you know, that we'd like to keep the house and move forward. So the first day I was at the Taylor house, this is the hedge that was there, and then of course this is the hedge, and this is a view from the Taylor master bedroom area. So you can see that this is a lower view and this is the upper view. This doesn't really block any views. And then so the guideline privacy says they don't want people looking down. So even though the tailors are looking down on us, we're not looking down on anybody. And our deck is lower than their lower floor. So we're not violating that guideline. So when we first... This is the picture I took the first day I was there. And then the tailors cut the hedge down. So I had a surveyor survey this. 129 is where it was. That's what I designed to because I wanted to be sensitive to what their experience in that house was. They cut it down to 127.4. So they cut it down 1.6 feet, which is fine. It's their hedge. They can cut it down to any height they want. So this is not on the roof deck. This is the front roof. So the front roof garden is the only thing that's taking out a little teeny piece of their ocean view. So this is with the full height hedge. And this is the fence that would be behind the hedge, the green line. And so you see there is some ocean view blocked. But if you look at this, the guidelines encourage terraces, screens for terraces, areas that have action to increase privacy. So we're saying we put this screen up, which is this right here. So this is even with a cut down hedge, they still have privacy and so do we. So then you can see this is the height of the hedge the first day I got there. So they'd have 100% privacy here. There'd be no impact on the tailors from the lower level if they just grew the hedge to the same height. So this is zoomed in on that same picture. So you can see this is the current house. This is where the roof garden would go. This is the cut down hedge. So even that really won't impact it. So this is the polyline from the computer. So this is the water view. This is the part of the view we would block with the roof garden. You can see the chimney of the existing house here. So this is 3.7% of their ocean view. Of course, they get 100% of their sky view, and they get 96.3% of the rest of the view. You know, we did talk about building a two-story house on this property. And if we decided that we had come in with that, then we'd be talking about 50% sharing the view or 40% sharing the view. We're giving them 96.3%. We went into this thing with a one-story so they could enjoy the view. We just want to have light, air, and view ourselves. And so that's kind of where we're there. And so this is our property. We don't have any view, light, air. This is crammed way down here. Here's the Taylor hedge. This is the fence height. You can see it's lower than the Taylor house. Our new rooftop deck is lower than the Taylor land. So this is all about design guidelines and being reasonable. I think we're meeting all the policies, and I think we're being reasonable. about this whole thing. So here's the deck. You can see you walk up here, walk this way. You have planters here, planters here. There is no impact relative to the tailor's privacy. So this is what you would see from the tailor's window if you approve this project. There's a rooftop deck, which improves their view. There's no blocking from the ocean view or the sky. This is the tailor hedge here. They could grow at any height they want. This is the screen. This is our hedge. This is the grass on the far side of ours. They wanted to have gravel on this roof, we showed it. We have two standard skylights here, so we reduced that. We increased the planter here for the Pittosporum. So we think this is a better view than they have now. So on the right-hand side here, If you approve the project tonight, this is what they would see when we're finished, which is exactly what I saw the first day I was there. And this is an improved view over the top of the house. And so I hope you approve it tonight. We've been at this for 516 days. And if we wait long enough, maybe the code can change two or three times. But it's been a long time, and no one's brought any of this up until just now. That's what I have to say, and if you have any questions.

Okay, questions for the architect? Thank you.

Oh, you have a question. Go ahead. Yeah, so you had a slide where you showed different rooftop decks that you found in the city.

Yes.

Maybe you could bring that back up again really quickly. Sure. Yeah, anyway, while you're finding it, my question is this, is that a rooftop deck that you can walk out to from an interior part of the house seems to me different than a rooftop deck that is at the highest level of the house. And some of the examples you showed were, in fact, walk-out roof decks. That's true. So this one is not? Correct, yeah.

This one is not. You see the stair going up here. This one is. It's on top of the garage. And then this one is on top of the 8.

Okay, so I guess it's more of an observation than a question, and I think I'm probably mentioning that because I think that that might be germane to future discussions about this, but... Thank you.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of discussion we should have about rooftop decks, but for the last 516 days, you know, we should base it on the original discussion we've been having all along. As city staff said, and they are correct, that they weren't counting guardrails on, you know, 80s as volume. So to change that now, this long into the deal, It's kind of, since we've already done the volume metrics, seems like a stretch, but anyway.

Okay, thank you. All right, this time I'd like to invite any other members of the public like to make their comments on this application.

Good morning, Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm sorry, good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Krista Ostoich, and I represent the neighbors, Bruce and Linda Taylor. I had a presentation prepared, and I'm going to shorten that and get to it. But I want to clarify a couple of points that have arisen during the course of this discussion. First of all, I listened to the discussion. It was called Seven Posts Trust. And I think it was at the last hearing that Commissioner Amphorn had some questions about the volume study. And I wanted to clarify why that situation is different than this situation. I'm aware of it because I represent one of the neighbors on that project. But in that particular circumstance, the reason the volume for the deck was not taken into consideration is because that was a remodel of a home that was built, I believe the year is prior to 2003. And so the city's standards do not require a volume study on certain non-conforming structures built at a certain date. That structure fell within it. I know you had a lot of great questions about the non-conforming nature, but that really right there is the reason. There was no volume study done on the house because the code did not require a volume study. It's a completely different situation here. This is not a remodel. This is a rebuild. And as we have seen, a volume study was performed on this residence. Whether there's been a policy change or whether it just slipped through the cracks, it's not really clear to me based on the evidence that I have found to date. But what is clear is that the city has full discretion to regulate that rooftop deck. I think those of us that pay attention and watch the workings of the city have watched you struggle with this ADU issue. Your hands have been completely tied and there's really not a lot you can do about it. We've heard month after month that people come in and they're upset about the fact that somebody can build an ADU, call it an ADU, take up more space, and they don't have to comply with the city codes. But the tailors acknowledge there's nothing you can do about it. You can do something about this rooftop deck. The rooftop deck is completely independent of the ADU. And it just seems fundamentally wrong to say that because it wasn't counted initially, that it can never be counted. There has been no grandfathering because this project has not actually been approved. Now, the fact that the volume study on the rooftop deck wasn't done creates two big problems, in my opinion, for the city and ultimately for my clients. One, in contrast to what Mr. Miller said, at the last hearing, none of the commissioners said, basically, if you come back with a 15 by 30 foot deck, you're going to get approval. What you all said is try to work out a compromise with the tailors.

The Taylors are willing to compromise.

I included a text message from Ms. Taylor in the packet that said she was willing to compromise. She wants the deck moved away from her house. I think that's a reasonable compromise. The problem is, though, is that the city's failure to require the volume study is preventing any sort of compromise on that issue. Of course the McWhorters aren't going to agree to move the deck because they know the loophole that they're in right now that allows them that square footage would be taken away the moment they move that deck off the roof. Now, are you required to allow that loophole? No. Has the state required you to exclude rooftop decks and their volume from your maximum floor space? No, it has not. And so this project, yes, it has been in front of you for a long time. But we have this large issue. It's a very large rooftop deck. This is not a view deck. This is more like a party deck. When you're talking about 400 square feet, if you look at the design of that residence, the master bedroom is 110 square feet. The great room, which is pretty much the rest of the square footage in the house, is about 650 square feet. And so you imagine, we talked about, Mr. Miller talked about the size of his clients. This is not a lot of living space, right? And so that 400 square foot living space on the roof is going to be utilized, and it's going to be utilized frequently. And that use is going to create light. sound, potential smoke, music, all of these impacts to the Taylor residence. Now, the Taylor residence is a large residence. Yes, when it was built, it was the first mayor's house of the city of Carmel. It was built in 1913. It is on the historical register. These views, the reason that house was built there is because of the views. So it's hard to understand why this commission, this commission that year after year protects the character of Carmel, is going to allow a party deck to impede on the views of a historical home. Now, as stated, the Taylors were willing to compromise. But the only compromise the McWhorters came back with is they slightly decreased the size of that rooftop deck. They also changed the seven foot tall screen from a screen to a solid, I think they call it a fence, a solid barrier. So while that solid barrier may mitigate some of the privacy impacts, it makes the impacts on the view much worse. Now Mr. Miller put up several different pictures, but quite frankly, I've been in the house several times and those pictures do not do justice to what that rooftop deck will do to the Taylor residence. I believe four of you have been in the house as well. And I recall being on the second floor and that there were real concerns about the deck, about the privacy and really about the views. That has not changed with this new submittal. So my recollection in April is that this commission asked the parties to go back and try to work out a compromise. My clients were willing to compromise. The McWhorters only compromise was to slightly scale back the size of the deck. But it's still 400 square feet. I know my time's running out, but I briefly want to address the volume study again. This project has not been approved. the addition of the rooftop deck would be a minor addition to the volume study. And because it hasn't been approved, and because when built, it's probably going to be there for a very long time, we would ask that the city require this project to comply with the city's own guidelines. And the city's guidelines make clear, as well as city staff has made clear, that a rooftop deck must be included in the volume study. Briefly, the parapet issue, it just seems like a non-issue to me. If the deck is able to be used, it is a deck and the city's own definition of a deck in talking about the volume study clearly includes you know, a parapet, if that's what you're gonna call it. It's any boundary around the deck is what is used to measure the volume. So we thank you for all the time and effort that you've put into this project. We know that these are contentious issues, but it really comes back to why should a property owner be able to build an ADU then get additional usable space on top of that ATEO. They should be treated like you treat every other property owner that walks through your doors and that deck should be subject to the volume study. In sum, we think the deck as proposed is a violation of the residential guidelines. It direly impacts the views and the privacy of the Taylor residents and We ask that you approve the project without the deck. If you are inclined to allow a deck, please require it to go through the same process that all other projects are required to go through. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Any other members of the public that would like to make comments on this application? I invite you to come forward at this time.

Good afternoon, commissioners, Mr. Chair, commissioners. I'm David Armonosco. I'm a product of Carmel. I grew up here. River School, Sunset School, Carmel Middle School, Carmel High School, Kipps Market on the corner of Ocean and San Carlos, working after school, selling pine cones for 10 cents in the sixth grade. Enough about me. The important thing here is that ONE OF THE IMPLIED ACTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALWAYS UNDERTAKES IS ONE THAT'S NOT WRITTEN AS A LAW OR AN ORDINANCE, AND THAT IS RESPECTING AND ENHANCING THE CULTURE OF CARMEL. AND THE CULTURE OF CARMEL THAT I'VE GROWN UP WITH WAS THAT NEIGHBORS WORKED WITH NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS CARED FOR ONE ANOTHER, NEIGHBORS ALWAYS TALKED TO EACH OTHER. THERE'S ALWAYS CASES WHERE THAT DIDN'T WORK, This is a town that is very proud of the history of this town. And one of the historical facts of this town is the Taylor's home. It's the home of the first mayor of Carmel. It's deemed historical property in Carmel. And it's something that should be treasured, as we treasure some of our other historic sites in Carmel. And part of that history is that view, that mayor's view, the view of people who will live in that house after the Taylors are long gone. is something that should be preserved because it's part of what was created in that historic property. I'm not a technician on these issues, but I ask you that you really do consider a couple of factors. Remember that we used to have bonfires, beach fires on the beach in Carmel. I actually lived on Scenic, so I know what that was like. Imagine being in your second floor bedroom with the windows open, listening to the ocean, feeling the fresh air, and somebody's barbecuing right across the hedge. Where's that smoke going to go? That is an impediment on a neighbor's privacy and on their lifestyle. Imagine if there's a fire pit and there's all kinds of frivolity and lots of laughter. I'm all for laughter, and I'm all for enjoyable parties and great social gatherings. But when it's right in front of you and you're seeking the peace that you bought that house for, it has an impact. So I ask you, as Krista mentioned, to strongly consider those legal factors and those design factors but also think in your minds about what Carmel is and the culture that we're so proud of that we live in here. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, any other members of the public like to come forward and make their presentation?

Hi, I met a few months ago. I'm Linda Taylor, the homeowner right behind the McWhorter project. I think everything's probably already been said, and you've received several letters from me, but I just wanted to make the same kind of point, is what kind of Carmel do we want in the future? Do we want rooftop decks that have hot tubs, which that one does have. That was the cutout that goes back right against our property line. barbecues, fire pits, heat lamps, lighting, music, noise. I mean, it's just like the umbrellas. An average umbrella is nine feet tall. That goes up another two, three feet over the height of Scott McWhorter. So it does, really, it does affect our view. And we've asked Eric several times for what do they plan to put on top of this roof deck? And just blank, no answers, no response to that. And he also told us when we asked if the roof duct could be moved forward that it can't possibly happen because it wouldn't pass a volume study. So we did try to work with him. But anyway, Bruce and I have spent the last 25 years enjoying privacy and lovingly preserving the historical character of that home. And as Krista said, the location was picked by the first mayor of Carmel because it's in the historical documentation, the sweeping views of Carmel Bay. And what the McWhorter project will do is take away the last remaining view of the bay that we see. Is it right to abuse a new ADU rule and take away what remains of that view? I don't think so. Carmel's lot coverage regulations exist for a reason. Many homeowners would like to build bigger homes, but those regulations protect the character of our neighborhoods. Using ADU rules to overbuild a lot for personal use, then creating an outdoor living space on top of the ADU, that substantially impacts the neighbor, us, undermines those protections. I ask the commission to please consider the impact of this project on our home and the impact on the future of Carmel. So that's about it. Thank you, any comments?

Okay, any other members of the public like to make any comments regarding this application? Okay, I'm gonna allow the architect to come back up and just respond to any other comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's go back here. So I heard a lot of people saying that we're taking or even changing the view, but that's an actual false statement. We had the hedge surveyed. We know exactly how high it is right here. So this isn't my guess of how high this hedge, this is how high it was when I took this picture. This is how high it was when they cut the hedge down. I know for a fact that based on those survey drawings, and I'm willing to share the survey with county, with the staff, that this view will not change. So I keep hearing about views. These are accurate pictures. They're just incorrect. And also I heard that the, you know, the discussion about impact on a historic house. First of all, it's 30 feet from the historic house or more, 40 feet. Has no impact on the historicity of the house. The views aren't blocked. The upper floor view is completely open. The tailors talk about the traditions in Carmel. They want to buy that house and make it into a guest house instead of letting my client have an enjoyable situation with that house. They want to deny my client any light and air, completely unreasonable. And so they've strung this thing along for over 500 days. You know, I just don't see how they think they could be in any way considered that they would work with us on this. It was either get rid of the rooftop deck, period, or we want to buy the house. So now they're coming in here, you know, telling everyone how compassionate they are and how they want to work with us. But we've tried. And I've spent a lot of time trying. But there's only two ways to go. get rid of the rooftop deck or sell the house. It's pretty harsh. So thank you very much.

Okay.

Shep, are there any hands up online?

I didn't ask before.

No, sir.

Okay. I'm going to close up all the comments, open it up to the commissioners for discussion. Anybody like to begin? Commissioner Albert, there you go.

I'll start, Chair. Thank you. And thank you to everyone that spoke. This is an important discussion that we're having. And rooftop decks will continue to be part of our discussion going into the future, that's for sure. I'd like to be clear on why I objected to the rooftop deck. I think it was our last meeting. I believe Mrs. Stojic said it correctly, the seven post project. that project is in the beach riparian zone it was non-conforming eight ways to sunday in its existing state and my concern with they were adding an adu which we could not discuss and they were putting a rooftop deck on top of their adu i was a rather large rooftop deck if i remember could have been 800 square feet. It was very large. And to me, that was an increase in intensity of use on a non-conforming site in the B-triperion overlay zone. Even so, that actually is not votable. That is not a reason to deny that deck given our current regulations and guidelines. And I accept that. I still opposed it because I wanted to be clear that the increase of nonconformities I believe is a scope creep that we've been experiencing in town that in several ways can be a threat to our character. The project that we're looking at right now, and I'm extremely sensitive to the fact that it is a property owner that would like to develop their personal property and they have a neighbor that has a very significant historic property behind them. So this is a very delicate balance. This design, as designed, is conforming to all of our regulations. and has been modified over a period of more than 500 days to continue to refine its conformities and to do its best to accommodate the comments that have been received by not only staff, but by the Planning Commission and by the neighbors. I cannot pinpoint any regulation that tells me that I can deny a rooftop deck on an EDU. And perhaps staff could make that clear to me. But at this point in time, I can't pinpoint that. I accept the opinion of Mrs. Stoich that it is fundamentally wrong to put a rooftop deck on an ADU. That is her opinion. I see it a little bit differently. I see the addition of this rooftop deck as actually supporting the design guidelines that talk about both privacy and views. We live in paradise, and views are an important part of that, and an important part of our personal and private property as well. So I see this deck as actually adding that part of our guidelines to this particular property. I can't speculate why the property owner is doing certain things, nor can I speculate how they are going to use this deck. And as a planning commissioner, I find it difficult to hear this deck being described as a party deck. That to me is... pure speculation with some rather uncomfortable optics. So I do not accept the characterization that simply because someone is wanting to put a rooftop deck on their single story house that it automatically becomes a party deck. I also know and remind everyone that we have several ordinances and a noise element that protects the character of our village. And should there be excessive noise or smoke or sound, that there are options and remedies available to all of us as residents here. I think that really is all of my comments. I was very pleased. I agree with the condition of approval 36, just getting some light in the slats of that fence and also calling up the fence material. I do happen to like the light filtering that we have in our fence design, so I'm glad that that was added in there, Mr. Olander. I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY HEAR, IF WE COULD, I WOULD LIKE MR. MILLER TO SPEAK TO THE PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL 34 FOR CHANGING THE SIZE OF THAT GREAT ROOM DOOR. I'M NOT SURE. IT IS, YES, VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. And our design guidelines speak to the importance of variety in town and variety along the street. And we absolutely see that in this design as it's proposed. So I'm uncertain how I feel about condition of approval 34. Yes, thank you to the decrease in size for the skylights. And that concludes my comments. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Locke, your comments.

Okay, I'm gonna take a different tack on this one. This has been a very difficult project in my opinion to deal with because I think that there were some good arguments made, both the recommendation by staff, the three different options, and then the further discussion about the volume. I think that what slipped through the cracks, so to speak, was the concept that an ADU is invisible to us. That square footage of the ADU, we don't consider. And so that deck area, if it were a deck built on a house, would be counted as volume. And I think that, to me, I think we have to look at it that way. At least that's my opinion. In this case, you also are dealing with privacy issues that I think that obviously we've discussed ad nauseum. Light, sound. I think that one of the big concerns that actually was just pointed out was this concept that the hot tub would be right up against the hedge. It would be on a second story. It would be at the same level as the property located behind it. And those types of features should be private. And I think that this property in particular in the proposed design gives options that it doesn't have to go on a rooftop deck. I also want to point out that there is a view deck in the front of the property. And I've heard the applicant's architect talk about this rooftop deck being there for the view. I'm not really sure that you were going to get a lot of view, especially with all of the screening that is proposed. So the view deck is the deck in the front. And it's not a small deck. It's actually a deck that I think would be considered a reasonably sized deck for many people. And there's also a small courtyard. And the courtyard also gives you an area that could be used for barbecuing and for other uses. The discussion about the compromise, and I have a problem with the concept of the planters that are not permanently attached, so they're not appurtenant to the building. Those planters can disappear over time. I'm not sure that, you know, given that there was some discussion about that they were not permanent. So that is concerning. And then I guess just in general that Commissioner Roos mentioned the occupiable area should count. And I do believe that in my opinion the volume should be considered. On to your comments. The fence spacing definitely is in order, and do appreciate that the skylights have been reduced. Thank you.

Commissioner Roos, your comments?

Okay. I would second the comments about the conditions, the fence, and so on. But for me, the real issue here it's a roof deck. I'm, I think I want to be sensitive to the fact that it seems the architect and the applicant have, have, um, worked in good faith because this, I don't believe this was actually, the rooftop deck was actually rejected at the concept stage. Am I correct about that? It was not rejected. Um, so I'm trying to be sensitive to that at the same time. Um, I don't like rooftop decks, and I think that they are almost inherently compromising privacy. I'm gonna constrain that a little bit to talk about rooftop decks that are on the top of the house as opposed to a walkout deck like the front deck, which is on the roof of something, but is not on the roof of the house, as it were. Again, I think this is very difficult, and I do, and I sense this is as much I think for the Taylors, this is as much about potential noise and other disruption like barbecue smoke or whatever. I live in a house where the neighbor's deck looks right into my yard, and it was there when I bought the house, so fine. I think I'm going to keep coming back to this as I sit up here. The size of our lot sort of dictates that you're not going to have much privacy. That is the nature of 4,000-foot lots. And so I don't really know where to go with this. I find this a very difficult case because, yes, we can exact a volume study. That is one of the options that Mr. Olander put before us in his report. The question is, okay, so if it passes volume study, then do we still need to decide? if a rooftop deck is okay based on privacy review issues, the design guidelines, if you will, or do we owe it to the applicant and the neighbors to decide on that issue before requiring the extra work of a volume study? And I don't know, I'm a little bit at a loss here. So that's all I'm gonna say for now. Maybe I'll have another comment.

Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Karapak?

It's a very interesting topic today. I want to make three points, and they go in a completely different direction from everybody else. So I agree with everything you said, by the way, but I want to say three different things. The first thing is I remember vividly when I came to Carmel back in 2014, I came to one of the planning commission meetings. It was around 2015, and the topic of the agenda was a rooftop deck or oversized balcony on ocean. like one of the houses where you enter the city. And I'm not sure if Chair Lepage was there or not, but it was a very integrating discussion about that. And the main argument there was that even though the current owner promised not to have parties and put umbrellas and furniture on the rooftop, there was no guarantee that the house will not be sold in a couple of months, and the new owner will decide to do exactly that. So that was back in 2015, and that's when I came to the conclusion that if you want to understand what's going on in Carmel, you have to go to planning commission meetings. So that's just kind of the introductory point. The second point I want to make is, I think it's a philosophical question. The founders of Carmel... had a reason why they decided to make this lot so small. And I think the reason was because they wanted people to go out and meet the community, to spend time in the community, go to the beach, go to the downtown, not celebrating in their homes. I think that was the reason why they wanted to have this lot so small. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there were other reasons as well. But it was... primarily about building the community. And my concern with these rooftop decks is, in general, not just this one, is that it goes exactly in the opposite direction, where I only invite a bunch of people to celebrate on my rooftop deck. I don't want to interact with the community as a whole. That is not really very much in sync with the philosophy of Carmel, in my mind. The third comment is about the way we, it's mostly related to ADUs. We count ADUs in our housing element. And we argue to the state of California that ADUs are for caretakers, they are for maybe some relatives. But in general, the idea is they are, additional housing for families, right? That's how we argue to the state of California and my understanding is that the state of California accepts that argument. So now, having a rooftop deck is not only a problem to the people, to the neighbors, it becomes a problem to the people living in the ADU, which per definition is a different family living there, right? So now, what do we do then? Do we insist that the ADU itself has access to the rooftop so that the people who live there have control of what's happening over their heads? Is that the right way of doing it? Now, the applicant decided to pick that path with the ADU, even though we have a clear understanding and discussion last time that It is not going to be used that way because the bedroom in the ADU and the bathroom in the ADU are much bigger than the ones in the main house. But if they decide to go with the ADU story, then we need to be consistent about it and say, what's going to happen if this ADU is being used as an ADU, there's a family living there, now we have a balcony on top that creates a problem not only to the neighbors, but also to the people living in the area. Right? Does it make sense, actually? Because what I'm trying to understand is, Let's step back. I think the problem we have with ADUs is because we see them in different ways in every conversation. In one conversation, we see them as this additional housing for another family to live on the property and increases our housing supply. In the next conversations we have, it is an extension of the house. Some people talk about maybe I'll have a caretaker there. Some people say maybe I'll have a relative living there. Some people don't say. So that's really the problem we have is because we don't have a clear concept how these ADUs are going to be used. And we have no clear concept how the rooftop terrace on top of the EU is going to be used. And that's always a risk. So at this point, I would say we desperately need a policy around rooftop terraces, because this is going really badly. And for this particular project, It started 516 days ago. A lot of conversations around it. Maybe that would be the one that will go through the cracks. I'm not sure. But in general, we need to have a policy around rooftop terraces and hopefully have something in the design tradition 1.5 that prohibits this kind of usage. Because in my mind, it's not Cornell. It's just not the philosophy of town. It's not the way the town is supposed to work. So, thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, I'm going to focus my comments two ways. First, I'm going to deal with the volume issue. This is in flux. We're dealing with this... getting the objective standards right now for ADUs. But this project was, the volume was done already and I think at this time it would be unfair to impose a change in that rule on them. And also I don't think the volume is really the issue. It's just a way for us to get sidetracked on this. The real issue here is the impacts to the neighbor. That's really the issue. And that's what, and so the job of the commission is to mitigate these types of issues. And that's what we do on rooftop decks. And it requires that. You know, that's the work that we do here. We try to mitigate the impacts to neighbors. And yes, it requires us to do our job, but that's what our job is. And much of the time that we spend, we spend, you know, mitigating impacts to the neighbors and requesting that applicants make changes to their application to mitigate those impacts to the neighbors. Now, we requested that the applicant reduce the size of the deck. The applicant reduced the size of the deck. There was a lot of discussion about the screens. Generally, it was my impression that the commission did not like the metal screens, and so the applicant removed the metal screens. There's been this talk about the planter boxes not being permanent. The fence is permanent. That's a permanent screen right there, you know, and it has a height. The applicant has had a surveyor measure the height of the hedge before and after, so that's a known thing. Now, most of the time we're talking about is the view. There is no substantial impact on the view here for the tailors. There just isn't. You can't argue that. I mean they can see. It doesn't impact their view of the water in any substantial way. You just really can't even make that. So it really boils down to one impact and that is the potential noise or some other type of contamination of the air from activity that happens on that deck. That's what it boils down to. Now we have specific ordinances about noise. And if you have a hot tub deck up there and it registers more than 65 decibels at the property line, That's a violation of the ordinance. And you deal with that with a complaint. And you come out and you measure it with a, you know, you have to have a third party has to come out and measure that. You know, and then based on that, you know, independent measurement, a decision is made. So, I think that that's handled. Now, characterizing as a party deck, it's just pejorative, we all know that. I mean, I don't know what they're gonna do there, but there again, If the McWhorters are having a party out there and it's too noisy, there are ordinances against that. It's a nuisance. Call the police. Now, I'm not saying that we should be setting up a situation where the Taylors are going to have to be repeatedly calling the police because they're having a party there. You know, I don't know the McWhorters. I don't know what they're going to do. You know, but I just really think that reasonable people aren't going to be conducting themselves that well that way. If they are, then I think that becomes, you know, a litigation matter. So really what we need to deal with here is the impacts to the tailor, how we mitigate those and measure what the impacts are. I think the impacts have been mitigated substantially. The deck has been made smaller. Screening has been added. The impacts here are not substantial. And I think that the... the compromises that the tailors have offered about moving the deck to the front of the property, that's just going to put the deck more in their view. They're going to see the whole deck then. The way it's set up right now, they can't see the deck. They really can't see the deck. And we have reviewed many, many decks that are much closer to the property line than this one. This one is significantly far back. And also, I think the applicant presented a very good specific picture in our guidelines. Typically it shows a deck where the deck above is looking down on the backyard, you know, of an applicant and these the tailors are significantly above this property. That's why their view is not impacted. So, you know, I just not think there is a substantial impact here. I think the applicant has responded to the concerns of that the direction that the planning mission is given, and they've come back with a project which does not have a substantial impact on the Taylor's property. So I would move that we accept the resolution as presented by staff. I don't see any change. I think there was a question about... I think Commissioner Albert had a question about the great room. What was there?

Oh, yes.

Oh, about the size of the doors. The doors have been reduced in height, and they're basically just two six-foot-wide sliding doors together, as I understand it.

Right, with side lights. So I would strike that... CONDITION OF APPROVAL BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THEY ARE AS PRESENTED TONIGHT, THOSE DOORS ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE ARCHITECTURE AND THERE IS PLENTY OF VARIETY ON THE STREET THAT... ALL RIGHT. SO YOU THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE... I WOULD PROPOSE WE STRIKE CONDITION OF APPROVAL 34 ABOUT REDUCING THE WIDTH OF THE GREAT ROOM DOORS. And I would also consider adding to your motion that we, Mr. Olander gave us three options related to volume and we go with option one that states that no new volume study is required and that the changes that have been presented tonight address all concerns.

Okay.

So I would amend your motion in that way.

All right.

And I would second it.

Okay. Any further discussion? Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Alborn?

Yes.

Commissioner Karapetka?

Yes.

Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Ruse? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes.

Thank you, everyone. Give him a couple seconds to clear out here. Okay, that brings us to item number 10 on the public hearing. This is design study 26084. This is Britannia, California. I like that name. Consideration of combined concept and final design study and coastal development for substantial alterations to a single family residence located on San Antonio Avenue. Can we have staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair. All right, so staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 5301, existing facilities. And then that the Commission approve the combined concept and final design study and coastal development permit as described. So the site is located at San Antonio to southwest of 11th Avenue. There's also street frontage on Scenic Road. The lot is 9,843 square feet. The allowable floor area is 3,279 square feet. The existing residence is 3,233 square feet with a 441 square foot attached garage. There is a modest... ADDITION PROPOSED TWO SQUARE FEET PROPOSED ON THE UPPER FLOOR AND THEN 44 SQUARE FEET PROPOSED WITHIN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT ON THE LOWER FLOOR SO EFFECTIVELY THE ONLY NET SQUARE FOOTAGE CHANGE VISIBLE IS THAT TWO SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON THE UPPER FLOOR THE PROJECT ALSO IS WILL BE RECLAD THROUGHOUT THE SIDING WILL CHANGE WITH SOME TOUCH-UPS TO THE STUCCO and landscaping throughout as well. So in order to meet the findings for approval, staff has included a number of conditions of approval. Number 33 is to adhere to the recommended tree density that was set by the Forest and Beach Commission. As the site is over 8,000 square feet, the recommended tree density was required to be set by the Forest and Beach Commission. The Forest and Beach Commission recommended five upper canopy trees, which would be planted through a in lieu program. And then a minimum of three lower canopy trees planted on site. The applicant has proposed four lower canopy trees, which are identified on the site plan. And then the condition just implements this requirement. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS NONCONFORMING, SO THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED A DEMOLITION PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW THE NONCONFORMITIES TO REMAIN. CONDITION NUMBER 34 JUST REQUIRES CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PLANNING APPLICATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS TO ENSURE THERE'S NO DISCREPANCY THERE. 35 through 38, I can walk through these one by one. 35 for site coverage compliance, the applicant has indicated in the plans that the site coverage will come into compliance. The allowable site coverage is either 721 square feet of impermeable coverage or up to 1,115 square feet if at least half the coverage is permeable or semi-permeable. The existing coverage is 2,289 square feet, but that proposed coverage is unclear due to a number of reasons outlined in the staff report. Um, so condition of approval number 35 requires clarification. Uh, for example, uh, this keynote number six speaks to patio pavers. However, what was not included was that, uh, the deck above, which is impermeable, which might affect this calculation right here. Also keynote number two speaks to these wood tread steps, which the applicant has indicated does not count towards site coverage. Typically staff will not count single wood treads in the site coverage calculation. This is akin to like a, just a log on the ground. However, as demonstrated in the project renderings, these are much more substantial of a feature. We also have this keynote over here too for these hot tub steps. And then... ALSO THE ARBOR FEATURE KEYNOTE NUMBER 5 DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS SITE COVERAGE BUT IN OUR DEFINITION OF SITE COVERAGE ARBORS ARE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT SO THERE'S JUST A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE WITHIN OUR ALLOWABLE SITE COVERAGE. I APOLOGIZE. AND WHILE I'M PULLING THIS UP I SAW THE NEXT ONE WAS pertain to the arbor height. The arbor right now is proposed to be eight feet tall, whereas our zoning code requires a seven foot tall arbor. And the drivable pavers, just ensuring that those are actually not set within a permeable, or a structural system. Looks like our computer's going through a update of some sort. Yeah. There is a condition about the arbor height, the drivable pavers, just ensuring that there's no structural system set within the driveway that should be counted as site coverage. And then I think our last one had to do with lighting requirements. No more than one light fixture at any building entry. There was no lighting plan, but a number of light fixtures were shown on the elevations. And I believe that was my last slide. So that would conclude my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Okay, questions for staff? Go ahead, Commissioner Alborn.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Court. Was there a demo plan in the plan set that showed... specifically related to site coverage. The site coverage, the information that we ordinarily would have related to site coverage, let me back up. I kind of started in the middle. DS-26084, Britannia, California, were being asked to consider a concept and final at this particular hearing. And there are many unanswered questions related to site coverage. And so based on what I've seen thus far, I could see us finding a way towards approving a concept. But the conditions of approval are rather significant, especially related to site coverage compliance and the missing information in the plan set. So was a demo plan included that would show us? I mean, we were on site today. There is a significant percentage of site that is covered existing. And you yourself had said that the deck was not also included in the calculations. Those are two rather significant pieces to me.

THERE IS A DEMO PLAN. IT'S SHEET LA-0.02. IN THE PROJECT PLANS ATTACHMENT 3, IT WOULD BE SHEET 26 OF 45. ALL OF THE SITE COVERAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. THE RETAINING OR THE WALLS AROUND THE PERIMETER ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS EFFECTIVELY

and replaced and then for the replacement where are we in terms of if did you do any calculations were the deck added to the proposed cut to the site coverage calculations in the plan set are we still within compliance

So that's just the clarification that's needed. So the applicant has represented that the site would be in compliance. However, when you add in the treads, so that's keynote number two, and then potentially the comment about the, I'm sorry, what is it? Number 37, that planted ground cover with the driveway. There's just these little bits of, unanswered questions that could be addressed through conditions of approval. I'm sure the applicant could speak to these things. I believe the project is actually under the total allowable, but we just aren't able to check that box that yes, it is compliant. The conditions of approval ensure compliance.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions for staff? You have a question, Commissioner?

Yeah, I have a question about the stairway in the front, the treads. And you're saying that these need to be calculated as coverage. Those are pavers in there between the landscape timbers?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Are those pavers between the landscape timbers? I believe it's mulch. It's mulch, just mulch? That's my understanding, yes.

Okay, maybe it's the color in the situation. Yeah, this... The stairway seems like a grand gesture. It doesn't seem subtle or that really fits in with the environment the way that, I guess this is more of a comment than a question, so I'll back off till later, but thank you.

I have a question. You have a question? Yeah, go ahead. So I see on the proposed elevation, that would be the east elevation, there's a partial veneer, stone veneer on the walls. I think that is not in line with our design guideline because we're saying that stone should be applied to entire building elements, if I remember correctly. Is there a conflict with the design guidelines here?

Wayne Scott, are you referring to the Wayne Scott?

Well, it says here stone veneer.

On the back. Are you referring to this?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, exactly.

So it does wrap around both sides of the building. I don't have the north and south elevation shown, but it does wrap both sides of the building. You can see it down over here as well. Okay, okay. So it does wrap and then continue to the west elevation.

We typically allow wainscot too, don't we?

Yes.

Okay, yeah. It's just when you...

When you veneer the whole wall, it's got to go to an inside corner. Okay, so that is an acceptable implementation. Okay, good. Thank you.

Okay, any further questions? Thank you. Let's invite the architect to come up and make their presentation.

Good afternoon.

I'm Sam Pitnick.

California, also known as the Spyglass Residence. Carmel Point Landscapes is also here and available to answer any more specific questions pertaining to the site design and landscaping. So to begin, my client purchased this property about a year and a half ago. They absolutely loved the location and proximity to the beach. They didn't, however, love the house quite as much. There's nothing objectively wrong with it, but they just felt that it didn't quite embody the spirit of Carmel-by-the-Sea and California's Central Coast. The existing stucco house and white-framed windows and doors just didn't feel like Carmel to them. So they really wanted a house that reflected this special area. So over the last year, we've been working on a design that we believe fits in much better with the surrounding coastline and neighborhood. A large portion of the existing stucco siding will be replaced with new horizontal wood siding that will be stained and natural stone as well. This also extends to the existing site walls. We will be replacing the stucco with stone, which we think will present much better from the San Antonio and scenic sides of the property. The existing wood shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with real slate shingles and the white frame windows and doors will be replaced with dark framed, sorry, dark bronze framed windows and doors. I know you had a chance. I think most of you had a chance to look at the materials today on site as well. The existing painted garage door will be replaced with a nice stained wood glass door, and the double front entry door will be replaced with a pivoting wood door, which we think will create a nice, more inviting feel to the front elevation. The curved bay window along scenic side of the house is proposed to be removed, and the curved bay window on the San Antonio side will be replaced with a more squared version and extended to the ground, and that's how we are adding those two square feet to the main level. We're not proposing to change the height of the existing house or increase the volume. We are proposing to remove the two existing chimneys, which actually should improve the views, I think, from the neighbors across the street a little bit. Although we are proposing to add some square footage to the lower level. I think, as Evan mentioned, you know, this is going to be entirely excavated out from the existing crawl space and within the existing footprint, so no impacts to the you know, visual exterior of the home or, again, massing. One of the goals of this project is to maximize the views of Carmel Beach and the ocean. So along the scenic side of the house, we are proposing to consolidate the existing fenestration, removing all the small windows and doors and replacing them with larger sliding glass doors. The existing elevation just felt very, very busy to us. The back deck will also be enlarged slightly, infilling portions of those notched corners on the northwest and southwest ends, but we will not be extending the overall depth or width of the deck. We are proposing to replace all the existing hardscape, bringing site coverage into conformance and promoting permeability. We'll also be replacing the existing landscaping, which is currently kind of a mixture of box hedges and manicured lawns, not typical of Carmel. We're proposing a much more native drought-tolerant species, which we think will feel a little bit more authentic and appropriate for the Carmel area. Additionally, we're proposing a stone-clad gas fire pit in the rear yard and a cedar-clad spa also in the rear yard. These will be screened from public view by way of the existing wall along scenic, and that walkway is across the street, so the pedestrians are even farther away. Plus the new landscaping being proposed will also further screen the backyard, I think creating privacy there. We've read through the conditions of approval, take no exceptions, and we've already started working to address those comments pertaining to site coverage and lighting and the arbor. Maybe expanding on the site coverage issue that was brought up a little bit. With knowing now that the arbor does count as coverage as do the wood treads, we would just remove the arbor. I think we would replace the wood treads with just a vertical steel edge. The walkways are mulch, so that will keep us from, you know, keep it from counting as coverage. Apologies for not counting the deck above as permeable. That doesn't necessarily, that doesn't increase the overall coverage being proposed. What that just does is reduces the amount of impermeable COVERAGE BEING PROPOSED, AND WE WERE CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS TODAY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE WITH A FEW MINOR ADJUSTMENTS, WE'RE TALKING INCHES, WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT 50% PERMEABILITY, THUS GETTING THE EXTRA COVERAGE BONUS. SO IN SUMMARY, WE THINK THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SPY GLASS RESIDENCE WILL RESULT IN A HOME AND PROPERTY THAT FEELS MUCH MORE SPECIAL AND MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE FOR CARMEL BY THE SEA. SO WE HOPE YOU'LL VOTE TO APPROVE US TODAY. THANK YOU.

Okay, any questions for the architect? Okay, Commissioner Albert?

Good evening, thank you. Your window and door schedule shows four windows, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Mm-hm. And they're listed at eight foot three inches? That sounds tall. We would consider that outside of human scale here in Carmel.

Sorry, let me go to the schedule. What numbers were they?

11, 12, 13, and 14. And your renderings make it a little difficult to imagine where they are.

Yeah, I don't know if you have the drawings available. So sheet 83.3, those are actually existing windows in the stairwell, and we're just proposing to upgrade the units that are there. So they're very narrow. I don't know if you have the drawings, or I can give you my physical copy. But that is existing fenestration. So we're just keeping the sizes and replacing the units.

Do you have a drawing number?

Sheet A3.3.

I don't know what PDF numbers. In the packet, it's on attachment three, it's sheet 19 of 45.

Yeah, mine isn't numbered that way, but thank you. 412, 413.

I'm looking at just...

Those are existing at that time.

Those are existing, yeah.

I have a question as well.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, so I want to make sure I heard you right. You said that the treads are going to be moved. Are you just going to put a metal?

I think at this point, yeah. To count the treads would further increase the coverage. So we had actually explored that as a design option early on, just that kind of vertical steel edge that will contain the mulch and act as the steps.

Okay, and the walls that are retaining or defining the edges of the stairway, those are also counted in the site coverage, correct?

I don't believe the retaining wall site walls count towards the coverage. I mean, you can confirm that.

We generally don't count retaining walls as site coverage. Garden walls will, but we typically don't count retaining walls.

Okay, thank you. I do want to congratulate you for choosing excellent fire-resistant roofing.

Thank you. Did you get your question answered? So we're all good? Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, this time I'd like to invite any members of the public to come forward and make any comments regarding this application.

Any hands up online, Shelby?

No, sir.

Okay. Then I'm going to close the public comments and bring it back to the commissioners. Commissioner Roos, you want to begin? As conditioned, I'm okay with this. And Commissioner Albert?

I continue to express my concern for the extent to which the conditions of approval are covering details that we would ordinarily see in a final.

What specific?

Well, for instance, I don't think we have a complete plan that shows how site coverage is going to, we hear that it's going to be removed, but we don't actually have a plan to see how that's going to be implemented in the future. Mr. Court has said that the conditions of approval are the implementation for those directions. So in the interest of expediency, I could see myself approving this as conditioned.

I was trying to see what we've got here. Site coverage compliance prior to building permit. The applicant shall revise the plans throughout, adequately demonstrate the site coverage compliance and pursue it. So it's, I think it's there. I think it's there. So any other concerns? And Commissioner Locke?

I have nothing to add. Thank you.

None?

And Commissioner Karapetko?

Okay.

I just want to say this is a really special piece of property. Your clients are lucky to have this. I'll tell you. There's not many pieces of property like this that run The other thing I found interesting, and this really has to do with the application, is the level of elevation change. I mean, before there was any development, Carmelo, it must have really dropped off steep down to that beach, you know, which just kind of indicates to me that as typical of a bay, there must have been a lot of historic erosion that created the steepness of this property. Anyway, Amazing piece of property, and Sam, you've done a very nice job with it. So I'd make a motion that we accept the resolution as per staff. Second.

Okay.

Any more discussion? None. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Alvord?

Yes.

Commissioner Karapetkov? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to item number 11 on the public candidates. This is another design study, DS26117. This is the Luth Project Consideration to Design Study and Demolition of Existing Single Family Residents and Attached One-Car Garage Removal of Existing Non-Conforming Site Coverage, Retaining Walls, and the Construction of a 1797 square foot, two-story, single-family addition. It's located on Lincoln Street. Can we have staff report, please?

Yes. Sorry, I was hoping you'd slow it.

Good evening, commissioners.

Okay. Okay.

All right, thank you. So design concept hearing tonight for the Luth property, design study 26117. This is a standard 4,000 square foot lot at Lincoln, three northeast of 12th in the single family district. This will be a full demolition and rebuild. I had notes, so let's see how well I typed them up. The project as proposed appears to meet all zoning standards. The setbacks are met with some extra room still. It is still a single family residence. The heights are within the limits. Site coverage is within current limits and Our urban forest is still protected. There are sufficient trees on site and very close by to meet minimums, except for one suggested tree planting, which is the one proposed in the northwest corner of the property that would be a Monterey pine. The rest of the plantings are drought tolerant and or native plantings. And here are elevations, very similar to other properties in the neighborhood with one story, two story. This is stone and mostly board and batten. The elevations are broken up by different roof lines. And We did have some concerns about these large windows, window doors. It's not the entryway, and this I would leave up to some discussion for the Planning Commission. It's not an entryway, but it is directly on the front of the street. These are eight foot tall, bifold doors. They are broken up by the divided lights, but they are a dark trim on the white. Otherwise, the houses down below show the streetscape and how it fits into the neighboring properties. Sorry, there we go. And that is the conclusion of my presentation this evening. Do you have questions?

Okay, questions for staff? Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Albert.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Lewis. As I sent you a note this morning saying that I did have a question. I was trying to bring together the rendering that we see with the west-facing windows, that seven, eight and a half, or eight foot. the rendering versus the window and door. I think it was the window and door schedule. I'm not quite sure that they appear right.

So I saw what you were looking at. Sorry, is it okay if I explain that? Oh, please, go right ahead. Absolutely. So I had mismeasured these doors, which I've correctly labeled as eight, which matches the door schedule now. It was like seven, eight is what I had it at, something like that. And the front door, it was labeled the opposite direction. So it looked like nine feet. It was actually six feet. So it's a six foot eight door for the entry.

So how many... how many oversized doors and or windows do we have in the concept?

There are several around the house, but this is the only oversized, would that be over seven feet is what you're considering oversized? This is the only one visible from the street. Yes.

Got it. And my second question, thank you for that answer. My second question is, the uh for this from from my view it's it's on the left side with the tall windows is is this essentially a a white siding with a black metal roof is that what's being proposed they are edged off of that high contrast but they are predominantly a darker roof and a close to white siding as depicted well and i know i know the um the architect is very familiar with our design guidelines and our color requests.

I did not include the finishes just because this was the concept. It is kind of a beige color. It kind of complements the Carmel Stone siding. Thank you.

OK. Any other questions for staff? All right. I'll invite the applicant to come forward and make their presentation.

Good afternoon. Chairman LePage, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Claudio Ortiz. I'm representing Daniel Luce on this project. Thank you, Erin, for the presentation. I just want to, I mean, you brought up a lot of points about the design, the scale, and those elements. So I want to focus more on the concept that we came up with and how we came about the design and perhaps address some of the questions about the windows and doors. But I want to start by saying that when we looked at this project and analyzed the site conditions, we have a neighboring property to the north, a two-story wood building. And to the south, it's a one-story wood structure as well. And so the concept was to, my client wanted a three-bedroom, two-and-a-half bathroom home. with a second story. We went with a second story concept because it allows or creates more open space, which is appealing to these small lots. And with that said, we started with a sun pattern, focusing where we put certain rooms to capture the light in the patios. So we have a patio on the rear of the property in the southeast corner capturing some of the sunlight, and then a patio on the front of the property in the northwest corner And that started dictating how to program the plan and the design. With that said, analyzing and understanding the neighboring properties, I wanted to put the second story massing on the center of the lot and to the southern side of the property. By doing so, it created several benefits. One of them is, Because we have a two-story building to the north, by pushing the massing to the south, it opens up the space on second-story portions and it eliminates the tunnel effect that you would get with two-story buildings. Also, by putting the second story in the middle of the property, it just creates more of a buffer or a distance on that massing from the street, and it shrinks the second story massing because, as you can see, when you're standing on the street, unlike my streetscape, you're looking at it from a perspective, and so the second story just shrinks and it goes away, and it gets smaller as it goes further back. So that helped, you know, maintain the scale with the neighboring properties. With that said, by putting a second story sometimes very tricky because windows are sometimes an issue with privacy, so I've designed it in a manner that minimized the amount of windows on the second story facing north and south to maintain privacy, although the property to the south has very minimal openings on the northern side of that property, so there's not much of a privacy issue on that side. And the property in the north does have several windows. But again, by pushing the massing to the center and into the south of our property, it maintains a light onto the northern property. So all those details I contemplated on and looked into when designing the home. With that said, I think I was able to minimize or not have any impacts to the neighboring properties. I think we have some positive comments from the neighbors. There are some existing hedges and trees surrounding the property that creates natural privacy to the neighboring properties. So I feel very comfortable with the design that it does not impact the neighbors' views, light, and privacy, which are typically the main elements that come up when we propose a building like this, especially a brand new building with a two-story. But to address the doors and window height, so I placed a garage. On the southern side, because I like to have, when I do my designs, a living room with a vaulted ceiling. I like to maximize that height, that volume on the space. And I like to put the second story over kitchens and dining rooms, keep those rooms, flat roofs, more into a scale that is more of a, how do I put this? When you're in a dining room, you're more focused with the person you're with. So therefore, having a lower ceiling creates that cozy space. Living rooms are the opposite. They're spaces where you want to relax and open up the space. And therefore, that's why I don't like to put a second story over my living rooms when I can afford that. So that's what directed the design to put the garage on the southern side, the massing to the middle, on the rear, and so on. But what that does, it also created nine-foot ceilings throughout the lower level. And when I have 9-foot ceilings, I want to be able to raise my windows and the top of my windows and doors to an 8-foot height. Typically, a typical standard track home, if I can put it in those terms, 8-foot ceilings, 6-foot 8-doors or 7-foot doors, pretty standard. Because you want to maintain that balance between the openings and the space as a scale balance. Well, the same element I'm applying here when I have a nine-foot ceiling, you want to be able to create windows that are in scale with the space. I know this concept of human scale gets brought up a lot, but it also has to be in keeping with the architecture too. Because if you bring the windows too low or the openings, you lower them and you create too much space, MASSING BETWEEN THE OPENING AND THE ROOF LINE YOU CREATE THIS THIS MASS AND IT'S JUST THAT THE WINDOWS DON'T FEEL TO SCALE AND THEY JUST DON'T FEEL STETICALLY PROPERLY CORRECT I MEAN THAT'S BEEN MY the way I've been doing it for 30 years so far. So I feel that you also not only have to analyze it from a human scale perspective, but you have to analyze it from an aesthetics perspective and a perspective from the architecture itself. I'm hoping that we get the project approved assets, because I don't want to sacrifice or compromise the openings. More so, I've done several projects with the same door height throughout Carmel and the same wall height throughout Carmel, nine foot ceilings in my living rooms, nine foot doors, I mean eight foot doors. That's not too out of scale. In fact, I just went to visit a property up north, nine foot ceilings, all the interior doors, all the doors were eight foot tall. So that's still, in my opinion, within human scale. But again, that's my opinion, and you guys can weigh in on all of that. But more importantly for me, I just want to make sure that I don't take away from the character of the building. I don't want to ruin the status of it. I want to make sure that the proportions feel right. And so I hope you take that into consideration in the overall decision that you will make tonight. I WAS VERY CAREFUL AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BUILDING IS, YOU KNOW, RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, PRIVACY VIEWS, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDING FITS THE SCALE EVEN THOUGH IT'S A TWO-STORY BUILDING. I ALSO, NOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING INTO THE MATERIALS, BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE MATERIALS ALSO COMPLEMENT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. ALL THE BUILDINGS ON THE STREET ARE PRACTICALLY WOOD STRUCTURES WITH ONE STUCK BUILDING. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS A COMBINATION OF STONE AND WOOD. So, you know, contemplate it with stone. I mean, plaster or all wood. And so having this building with wood and stone breaks up those elements a little bit, but it also stays consistent with the neighboring properties. So I think I'm hoping that when you analyze this project, you view it as a whole, not just one particular item or window or door or roof material. I do want to clarify that the rendering does have a mistake in that the material on the roof depicted is a metal roof. That's not what we're proposing. We're proposing an asphalt shingle roof, not a metal roof. So that is different. Yeah. When I saw that, I'm like, oops. I should have cut that a while ago. Anyway, that's what went into this design. I'm hoping I can get it approved as is. I feel that it fits the neighborhood well. The neighbors are happy with it. My client is happy with it. And it meets all the criteria, envelopes, heights, massing. In fact, it's almost 2,000 cubic feet below the allowed volume. So I think it's a project that is respectful of the neighborhood and fits within the neighborhood really well. But I would love to get your input and direction and hopefully approval to move forward. Thank you.

Okay, question for the architect? You have a question?

I have a quick question. From the balcony, the front of the second story there, is there a view from there into the lot to the south?

The front balcony?

Yeah, the front balcony.

What was the question?

Is there a view from there down into the lot at the south or into any part of that house?

Yes and no. But the property in the south, it's practically a box, a rectangle box. And the room right next to our property is a garage. So there's no privacy concerns whatsoever. So I was careful to look at the same thing with the balcony in the rear. The existing property has some hedges and trees, and there's a patio in the back, but it's surrounded by trees and hedges. Like I said earlier, there's a natural buffer already that is assisting me or helping me with the design. But, yeah, I took those. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, does somebody like to invite any members of the public to come forward and make their comments? Any hands up online?

Yes, we have David Ray.

Okay, David, go ahead.

Can you hear me? No, we can't. Go ahead. Okay. My name's David Ray. I own the property to the north. It's Lincoln 3, southwest of 11th. I've got three points I'd like to make. First of all, I like the plans. I support everything the architect described. And I clearly think that what... what my neighbor Dan is doing here will enhance the neighborhood. The first point I want to make is this proposed new pine tree in the northwest corner of the property. That's smack under the canopy of a mature live oak that I have in my southwest corner of the property. And that live oak has maybe 24 plus inch trunk. And I don't think planting a new pine tree underneath a mature live oak is a good location. Second point I'd like to make is I'd like to see more detail on the new fence and the five foot retaining wall on our mutual property line. the existing fence, which the plans say will be removed. I'm not... Well, the fence is not in a straight line, and the fence in part is maybe a foot plus off the property line in some locations. And I fully support Dan's right to move it onto the property line. But as the architect described, the primary... privacy between the two houses is provided by my trees and hedges. And I'd like to make sure that that privacy is preserved. And I guess this is more of a factor for how the construction is done. Third point I'd like to make, after listening to all the talk about rooftop decks, the rooftop deck in the rear may be relevant to the privacy in my backyard. I'd like to see a cross-section of the line of sight from that deck to my rear patio. And that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you for your comments.

Okay, any other hands up online? Okay, I'm going to close public comments, open it up to the commissioners. Commissioner Karapetkov, you want to kick it off?

Yeah, when I first saw the plan, I was actually surprised that the garage is on the south side, but now that I heard the explanation from the architect, I think it does make sense that the masses move to south so that it's not doesn't create this tunnel effect with the house to the north. I think that makes perfect sense. Obviously, there are some consequences with the light, since the garage blocks a lot of the light coming from the south, so you have to figure out the windows. Now, the front... or the front windows that are eight feet high, I wonder if that can be solved by using transim, like a lower windows and some transim above. This way you can break up the glass in two sections, so there will be the transim section above and then the operable portion below. That may be a way to still get sufficient light into the living room, but without making them look too big in the front. I think that is one approach that I would love to explore. We always have problems with the neighbor to the north when the house goes second floor, as you know. And I'm glad to hear that in this case, the neighbors seem to be involved and has a specific problem. that are not unreasonable. So I think since this is only a concept, this is the right time to bring this request. And hopefully by final, we'll have all of them addressed, including the issue with the tree and the cross section for the balcony on the back. I think these are all reasonable requests. So as a concept hearing, I think everything I heard is good and I'm willing to support it. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Locke, your comments, please.

Yeah, I don't really have anything to add to this. I think it's a really nice design. I do think those windows are a little tall, and in particular, because the window and the door, the entry area is smaller, or they're not as large as those eight-foot doors. That bothers my eyesight, so that's really my only comment. Thanks.

Mr. Albert.

Thank you, Chair. Beautiful Carmel design, absolutely. I have three comments. The first would be I would like to see more consistency in human scale in the fenestration. I noticed the same thing Commissioner Locke just said, which was the contrast between the door on the west side adjacent to the garage and and these three, this panel of three eight foot windows. We do, the design guidelines do speak to consistency in fenestration, so I would like to see that reviewed. The second would be, CONDITION OF APPROVAL OR SOMETHING TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND FINAL THAT WILL ADDRESS THE NEIGHBOR'S REQUEST FOR THEIR ROOFTOP DECK IN THE REAR AND ANY PRIVACY IMPACTS THAT MIGHT HAVE AND MITIGATE THOSE IF NECESSARY. AND THEN THE THIRD, ALSO BROUGHT UP, GRATEFUL TO THE NEIGHBOR THAT CALLED IN, THANK YOU, RECONSIDER THE LOCATION FOR THAT PROPOSED PINE TREE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

Thank you. Commissioner Ruth?

Yeah, my comments would be very similar to Commissioner Locke's and Commissioner Alburn's. I look at this rendering and it's a very pretty house, very Carmel-y. But my first thought when I saw this drawing was that the windows were too big. That was my aesthetic response. So I would agree that those maybe could be scaled differently. I think Commissioner Karapetkov's comment about making a transoms might be one way out of that. I'm not really sure. And other than that, the whole comments about the, you know, you have a thoughtful neighbor who has made some interesting comments and I would like to see those addressed when this comes back in one way or another. I don't know, maybe you can speak to this, Aaron, whether or not there was a requirement for an upper canopy tree in this project.

I believe that there was. Okay. Why that was proposed.

So the question is where to put it then?

But we can double check that.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, this is a concept. I think the direction we want to give the applicant is provide a cross-section of that rear deck and how it impacts the neighbor's line of sight. That's pretty simple. You can do that. I think Commissioner Berkoff's suggestion that just put a transom window over those is going to help. Part of the problem that's creating, exaggerating the height of those entry doors is you only have four lights in them. If you divided them up into smaller lights, which a transom window will do, I think it would look more consistent with the design of the house. It wouldn't accentuate that. I do agree with you when you have nine foot ceilings and you have a low door height of seven foot, you end up with a big negative mass of wall right above the door and your eye wants to look past it, but it can't. So you are correct that a nine foot ceiling to look proportion wise and correct visually correct, needs higher window door heights. I'm not necessarily married to six, eight, or seven foot high doors. I agree with the architect that the design determines the size of the doors. Having said that though, I don't want to see 10 foot, 12 foot high designs in Carmel. That's just not appropriate for us. I think nine foot ceilings is pretty much the max for the size of houses that we want to, you know, maintain in this community. But I think there's a way to deal with that visually with the transom windows like Commissioner Karapetkov suggested. So that would be, I would agree with that direction. And... Other than that, very nice design and I think Claudia has a very highly developed sense of how to mass these buildings together. I really enjoyed looking at your 3D model and it provides a lot more illustration of how you approach this rather than just looking at these 2D drawings that we typically look at. And even the rendering, it shows one elevation, but it doesn't really give us the whole look of the design. And I think that really illustrates, you know, how you approach it in a much better way. Okay, so we have, we've got a resolution here. Do we have a draft resolution? Where are we? I lost my, got to re-sign in here. Get back to that. Okay. Excuse the delay, I had to reload it.

Chair, did you want to add some conditions of approval? Yeah, why don't you go ahead. We have a volume study. We have the standards. Volume study, landscape plan, submittal requirements, raptor and migratory bird nesting, setbacks, drainage plan. Do you want to add a condition of approval number seven related to the windows on the west side?

Yeah.

And how do you want to word that?

Well, I think, you know, I don't know if the commission is in agreement that they put transom windows across, but I think that was a good suggestion.

Do you want to bind the architect's design hands that way?

I think two things would mitigate the height of those doors. A transom window and then also smaller lights. So that would be my, that's how I would frame the direction.

Okay. Do you want to require that or do you want to make that as a suggestion for the architect to consider?

I think it should be a condition of the draft unless there's a difference of opinion here. But, you know, so for discussion.

Well, I suppose my concern is as the architect is... Yeah, what's your concern as far as... Well, as he is considering the discussion that we've had, he might come up with a solution that he prefers for his project.

Well, let's just make it that the architect mitigate the height of the windows on the... on the west elevation. That way it leaves it up to you how you want to approach it.

I prefer that. Thank you. And then another condition of approval would be condition of approval eight to consider the rear rooftop deck and neighboring privacy. And then condition of approval nine, which probably goes into the, it's actually part of number two, the landscape plan. And that would include the reconsidering the location of that pine tree in the northwest corner.

Okay. Let's add those. Those are the conditions of approval for concept acceptance.

Does that make sense? Yes. Do you have those? The windows, the rear deck, and the tree. Okay.

So we've added three conditions? Yes.

Great.

Okay?

Okay.

All right.

Any further discussion?

I would make that motion. Okay. We have a second? I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Alvord? Yes. Commissioner Karateko? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, I believe that Mr. Karapetkov has to recuse himself. He can't get any closer to this application. He's within the 300-foot radius. All right. This is... Okay, this is item number 12 on the public hearing. This is DS-25293, Kerr-Petkoff applications, consideration of Track 1 design study for amendments to a previously approved Track 2 design, located on Lawson Drive. A staff report, please.

Thank you, Chair. So, two options for the Planning Commission. The staff report had this as a paragraph, but I broke it out. Option one is find the project achieves all the applicable design objectives. B, make the appropriate findings for deviations from the design guidelines. C, provide staff with the findings for deviations. And lastly, D, continue the hearing to a date certain with direction to staff to return with a draft resolution for adoption. Or two, continue the hearing and provide direction or provide the applicant with direction to redesign the project to achieve consistency with the design guidelines. So the project was previously considered in October of 2022. for a small addition to the rear of the existing residence among some other changes. The project approval included condition of approval number 32 stated prior to final inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that the colors, materials and finishes for the addition shall match the existing primary residence The top shows a excerpt from the approved plans from that 2022 hearing. However, upon final inspection, staff identified that the proposed site condition was inconsistent with those approved plans and that the addition had been finished with stucco as opposed to the wood siding to match. BECAUSE THIS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT HAS ELECTED TO PROCEED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANS, WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEING TO RESIDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING WITH STUCCO, THUS MEETING THE CONDITION TO MATCH THE EXISTING PRIMARY RESIDENCE. So as you see on the right side now, all the wood siding has been removed and we are looking at a completely stucco residence. There are some other changes to the project proposed, some window changes, which would match throughout. However, we're primarily discussing the siding. However, notwithstanding the consistency that would be achieved by the project, there are some inconsistencies with the design guidelines. Design guideline 9.5 states that stucco in conjunction with some natural materials may be considered depending on the neighborhood character, but should not be repeated to excess within a block. as demonstrated on this slide, the residence is entirely stucco. There are no natural materials used throughout the project. And then 9.7, when houses to either side of the site are constructed of similar materials, use different materials consistent with Carmel's design tradition in order to achieve diversity in appearance. So the subject site is site number one, and then two and three to the right, those Two other residences are both finished with stucco. So approving the project as proposed would result in three stucco houses, which effectively have no natural materials all in a row. So staff's recommendation, again, you can find that the project meets the design guidelines with deviations from the design guidelines, or you can continue the hearing with direction to the applicant. There may also be other options that we can discuss and consider. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Questions for staff? Nope. All right. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to invite the applicant to answer. Make their comments.

Thank you. So as staff reported, DS-22-198 was approved in October 22. And going down the list of conditions, I complied with all of them, with the exception of condition 42. The reason why 32 was not workable was that We had a lot of fires in California, including the big Palisades fire, which created a huge panic everywhere, including in the insurance industry and also in our community. That triggered a lot of additional work and effort to include fire prevention into the design traditions, 1.5 document, et cetera, et cetera. Now, the problem is that my addition is very, very close to my neighbor's house and to the fence and to a bunch of trees in between. So that creates a severe fire danger. In fact, the fire marshal published a map last year, I guess, with different fire zones. And my house is in the fire hazard severity zone on the map. So basically, the house to the left of me is in that zone. My house is in it. The house to the right of me on the, let's say, that would be the east side is also in it. And then the rest of the houses are not. So basically, the assumption they make is that a fire would come from northwest towards my house. That's what this map says. And that means that it will first come through the neighbor with a two-story wooden siding house. The house will burn. Then we'll drop on the trees and the fence, and then it will go into my master bedroom. So that's the area where we sleep. That's the addition. So really when we built the structure, we realized how close that is to the fence, to the trees, and to the neighboring structure. That is overhanging. It's a two-story house. And it's all wooden siding. So the danger was real that if we use any wood as a material on the house, it will be dangerous, basically. So that's the reason why Condition 42 was not implemented, and that's the reason why I'm here asking the Planning Commission to make a change to DS-22-198 and allow me to use stucco consistently around the house instead of using or wooden siding. Now, most recently, two weeks ago, the fire marshal did inspection in my neighborhood and all of my neighbors got homework to fix their properties and clean vegetation. I talked to all of my neighbors and they all got homework. I didn't get any homework and I assume it is because I don't have this wooden siding close to the fence and to the neighbor. Instead, I have stucco So that may or may not be true. I just think that's the reason why I didn't get any note or any notification from the fire marshal to make changes to my property. I want to address the second driver of my request and that is really consistency of style. I did a little bit of reading, well, I did a lot of reading on ranch houses and my house is really a ranch house, open floor plan, single story, hip roof, right? And if you look at the history of ranch houses, the original ranch homes pioneered by the architect Cliff May were deeply influenced by Spanish colonial architecture making stock with the traditional and most common exterior choice. So that's really the reference I'm using here. Talk to my architect, my current architect, not my previous architect. I had to switch architects for a variety of reasons, including the whole issue with the siding. But I talked to my current architect and he did a little bit of additional research and basically the conclusion from that is that adding stucco to the house at 3009 Las Leone Drive would make it a much better defined ranch home. Right now it is not exactly following the tradition with stucco. It will be in line with the tradition of ranch houses. In terms of to address staff's comment about having variety on the street. You are able to see the street today during the tour of inspection. And we have quite a lot of variety. I have some statistics here if you're interested in. We have 14 homes in the Elche block facing the Carmel Mission. Four homes are finished in stucco. Ten homes are wood, adobe, and brick stone. So the ratio is five to nine. Well, actually the ratio would be 5 to 9 if I finish my home in Stockholm. So it's a very healthy, very good diversity ratio. Also, it's not just the material. The way we define diversity is not just the materials have to be different. It's the type of the roof. As I mentioned, my roof is hip. The other houses on the street have gable roofs. with various angles. Some of them are 2-12, some of them are 4-12, 5-12. We have some that are the house to the south is probably something like 12-12. It's a very steep roof. So we have variety of roofs, variety of homes, variety of finishes and materials, and the diversity on the street is given. And... maybe a third item so that when we worked on this proposal, we focus on the concept of simplicity. We realized that it's possible to mix and match materials and make the house look a little bit different, but then As you know, my house is not that visible from the street. So really, the only way to experience it is from the other side of the street because nobody walks on my side of the street. There's no really, it's dangerous, basically. There are cars driving all the time. So the only way people actually see my house is from the opposite part of the street where the Crespi Hall is, where the parking lot is. And from there, I measured 76 feet to the front of my garage. And you only see the garage door and one foot around the garage. So really, it's very, very difficult to see the siding material from that distance. And there's some scientific research about it. capabilities of the human eye to detect materials, textures, and color from such a long distance of 76 feet. The bottom line is it's not really visible, and it's not really impacting the overall appearance of the street. Now, I agree that the two houses that staff listed here, the two houses to the east, that they are not properly executed. Personally, I don't think that two-story houses should have plaster in the first and second floor. But that is not to say that my house should not have plaster and be compliant with the style, right? That's only to say that when these houses, these two houses that were in the picture get remodeled, and both houses are due to be remodeled. They were built in the 50s, and they are not in a particularly good shape. And one of them is actually pink. is on sale. So when the new owner gets it, maybe that's the point where they will come to us or to you and ask for remodel permits. But the proper way of doing it is to wait until the new owners of the houses come in here for remodel approvals and then address the issue of having stock on first and second floor and then fix these two houses instead of, you know, forcing you to implement something just because these houses are not implemented correctly. And I think that is the last one. Let me just see. So bottom line, I also wanted to make a comment about the two options that were presented and the recommendations presented in the staff report. I think both of them are kind of saying the same thing, that there is a deviation from the residential design guidelines. So it's kind of, nope. no choice kind of thing. Both of them say the same thing. I would like to see a third option that basically says that there is no conflict with the design guidelines and that the project can be approved and submitted. That would be my preference. Since all of the conditions are already executed, right? Site coverage is brought into compliance. Everything else is done. All of the inspections are passed. except the final inspection. So the only thing that we need to discuss today is, or decide on today is, is it okay to use stock on the entire house? And if that is a yes, then I would go with the so-called option three, saying basically no conflict with the design guide, approve as submitted. That would be my ask for the planning commission. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right. I don't see anybody else here. Anybody in the chamber or any hands up that want to make any comments regarding this application?

No hands on line.

Okay. I'm going to close the public comments, bring it back to the commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Locke, do you want to begin?

Sure, I can start out. Yeah, this is actually kind of an interesting situation. The project site is located right across from Carmel Mission. And clearly Carmel Mission is materials that are stucco, not stucco, but adobe, whatever. And that site Therefore, that neighborhood kind of has that, in my mind, that has more of that type of a context. However, the fact that there are two houses adjacent to this house that currently are stucco houses, that does have to be weighed as part of this decision. I do agree with the applicant that this particular neighborhood Residence is not visible from the road, and for that reason, I would have more, I wouldn't have as big of an issue with approving a variance, or not a variance, but a making findings for deviations in this case. But it also brings up kind of another question, which is the fact that most of Carmel right now is in this high-flighter zone. And so we have to grapple with every property in Carmel who wants to try to protect their home, obviously. We have been going through the design guidelines. We are now aware that there are a lot of new materials available out there that are fire resistant, that do look like natural materials. And in this case, if this is an issue just because of the fire concerns, and there were conditions of approval for this project that were issued in 2022 to match the existing house, that it seems to me that a fire-resistant siding that looks like wood and matches what's on the house would make more sense than trying to take the existing siding off and change it. But I do want to hear what everybody else has to say.

Commissioner Albarn.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Karapetkov. Yes, there are three stucco. If this... If we approve this project to stucco the entire house, there would be three stucco houses in a row. And we do have that guideline for variety in town. And I agree with the applicant and Commissioner Locke. We just don't see very much of it from the street. and I would be inclined to approve a deviation from the design guidelines to allow stucco for the entire property, if that is what the property owner would like to do, with one consideration, and that would be to ensure that the color of the stucco varies from the other two, because the other two appeared I remember in the picture they appeared rather similar. And so if the applicant would consider, yes, identical perhaps even. So if the applicant would consider selecting a stucco color that was different from what we see in properties two and three, then I would propose that we accept the project as presented with the deviation from the guidelines accepting stucco as a third. And this will be finding 9.7, a deviation from 9.7, saying that it's not very visible on the subject property and that we would be requesting a change in color.

Commissioner Ruth.

All right. I think the comments we've heard so far are pretty consistent with my thinking. I will say in relation to the fire concerns, I take this very much to heart. We literally changed our own house to stucco for this reason. I think we're going to be seeing much more stucco. And so we probably need to deal with this, just like we're going to be seeing more metal roofs and things like that. And I wonder if that isn't just going to be part of You know, Carmel has a traditional look, but it also evolves. You know, you go through periods where you see, oh, everybody's doing the black windows or whatever. And maybe the next evolution is we're going to have more stucco and more metal roofs or more tile or whatnot. I would consider, in addition to having a color that is noticeably different, I'm not saying it needs to be, you know, extremely different, but noticeably different would be helpful. I'm wondering if the applicant is amenable to perhaps a texture that is different. That might be another way to make it different from the neighboring houses and maybe different texture would minimize the need for the color to be that different. Not really sure about that. Maybe the applicant could think about different alternatives there. I think that the fact that the house is effectively apart from the garage door, basically not visible from the street, is a pretty strong mitigating factor. And I would be willing to make a finding that that's a sufficiently mitigating factor that as long as we accommodate either color or texture as a differentiating factor, that probably would be adequate in this particular case. And I'm assuming that the fence will be preserved there to the left side of the driveway. Anyway, those are my comments.

Thank you. Okay. I guess I'm going to agree with staff. I think there needs to be diversity here. I don't think differentiating colors, Tucker, is really what the guidelines or staff's findings represent. So I guess my feelings about this, I would be more in favor of just leaving, you know, approving the change in materials on the addition because you can't see it. It's in the back. And not approving, you know, I personally don't want to see stucco on the whole house. I just think that I agree with staff's findings, and I think that the intent of the guidelines is to create diversity. And... If the applicant wants to change the siding, I would encourage them to use a cement fiber siding. They have shiplap cement fibers that mimic what, you know, look like what he's got on the house presently. Or there's Class A wood. You know, we looked at a couple samples tonight on the project down that was, it was Sam, Pickner's project that he had a couple of samples. There's a lot of wood now that has a class A rating. It's been engineered. So, you know, this is, you know, that street kind of has a lot of kind of plain, more of the ranchy style houses that were kind of built in the 60s. And I appreciate, you know, I realize you can't see a whole lot of the house. It's got this giant tree there. It really kind of covers a lot of it up. But I appreciate the siding look that's there. It creates some diversity. So, you know, that's my feeling is just approve what he's done and he can leave what's there or he can propose something else besides stucco and, you know, meet the findings that staff has presented. So I think staff has made the correct findings. And there's options. You know, it seems to me the argument is, being presented by the applicant is the fire concern. So there's other options that you can use for citing which will address the fire concern. And I would even go so far as to say you can leave the stucco on the addition in the back, but put something on the rest of the house that creates diversity rather than the stucco. I mean, that might be a stretch for the Staff, I mean, staff may wanna make a comment about diversities and also consistency throughout the design. You wanna make a comment on that?

Yeah, I mean, you certainly are within your authority to approve the project as is. We didn't go back on the tour to take a look at the project, but one thing to consider is Again, you mentioned consistency of the project. Is the project consistent architecturally? So you do have that inconsistency of materials. Shelby, if you don't mind scrolling down. Is there brick on the house now? On the front facade. There is brick? There is brick on the front facade. Okay. So if you look at the lower elevation, this is the lower elevation. Yeah, that shows some brick there. So that's wood siding on the left, and then it transitions to stucco. You have stucco effectively on three elevations, and then wood on, I think, maybe two and a half, three. So there is a variety of materials. Even though, again, we can't see this. This is the back of the house. We do have inconsistent materials throughout.

Right. And our guidelines speak to that.

So while we're achieving consistency in one area, it would be inconsistent in another. Yeah.

Can I? Yeah, go on. One option that I discussed with my architects, and we decided not to put it forward, is to make the garage, cover the garage with stone. Because that is the only component of the house that is actually protruding. Everything else is way in the back. And that would allow us then to finish, well, to basically start the stone in the internal corner, the way that Guidelines actually asked us to do it and go around the garage.

And do the rest of the house in stucco?

Yeah, because it's the back nobody sees it.

I'm fine with that.

Yeah.

So that is something you can do. If you want to propose that, I'm... Yeah. And the store... And I think staff, would staff support that?

Yeah.

That provides diversity and then we have a consistency of design. And if the stone is applied as the guidelines recommend.

I think it was 9.5 encourages stucco with natural materials. So that would incorporate the natural materials.

So that would work.

Okay. So the color of the stucco is mindful gray. So it's different from the color that you see on the other houses. It's... They have more of a beige tone. This is a gray tone. Actually, the plan, I don't know if you can see the color very well. But it's a completely different shade of color. And we have a matching stone. It's blue country from Fond du Lac. that matches kind of the color scheme works, that can be done easily. I think that would look really nice.

I mean, that would add a lot of value to your home. Adding stone always, you know, gives it, I think it's an upgrade. Okay, so I guess we'll make a motion to amend the previous approval by adding Adding stone to the garage. And the applicant is saying it's going to be a fond du lac. And then removing the rest of the wood siding and suckling the rest of it. And the brick, too. We're taking the brick off, right? Get rid of that brick. Let's see what we can do to make this more expensive.

I second that.

Yeah, so this, as we've just discussed, it's no longer, but based on what I've heard, it's no longer a deviation. It is consistent based on this discussion. So what you could do is you... Yeah, present a resolution with this. No, no, because as we discussed in the presentation, it was a deviation. However, with the incorporation of... the stone, it is now effectively consistent.

So what you could do is you could provide the... Evan, wouldn't it be an amendment to condition 32 of the existing approval, which it requires that the applicant demonstrate the colors, materials, and finishes match the existing primary residence, and rather that now what we're saying is that the applicant shall... use a stone, cloud the garage with a stone and stucco the exterior so that all areas match and that the color is the gray color.

What is still the?

Do you want a new? The question is, do we want to amend the original approval or do we wanna have a new motion? I mean, let's just answer that question first.

Yeah, it should be a new, based on how we noticed and agendized, it should be a new- A new resolution? A new, yeah, correct. I'm just, because of- Well, do staff wanna, do you wanna write the resolution or do you wanna suggest- I mean, I think you could just, based on the direction I heard, I'm trying to figure out a way just to remand it back to staff for the action based on the discussion. or we can bring it back to you, but.

Let Steph do it.

Yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to figure out, I'm trying to wordsmith the motion in my head.

Well, do you want to do that while we consider the last item on the public agenda and then you can bring it back?

I think Anna had an idea.

Well, okay, so if it is a new design study, It is a Track 1 that is not deviating, so you could remand it back to staff.

So we just remand it back to staff with direction from the Planning Commission?

Yep.

The specific direction we gave?

Yeah, that would be...

Okay, and we don't even need a motion for that, right? Do we need a motion for that?

Did you make a motion?

No, we just remanded it back to staff to make it come... That this would... Comply with the standards of the guidelines, with the direction that the applicant shall apply Fond du Lac stone to the garage, and then you will remove the brick and install stucco to the rest of the area.

As discussed this evening.

Correct. With the colors as presented, the color scheme as presented in this application.

Did I make it? I can work with that. OK, thank you.

Was that a motion? We don't have to motion.

Point of order, I guess, question, because I don't know. Do we need to have a motion to remand something back to staff?

That's a question for staff. That's what I'm asking. Do you want a motion? Or you can just take it with remanded back to the direction.

I move we remand it back to staff with the discussion we just had about direction.

That works?

That works.

I'll second that.

You lost a commissioner there.

Pardon?

You lost a commissioner.

You have a quorum.

We got to wait for Commissioner Alburn to return. Okay, so we are making a motion to remand it back to staff with a direction given by the Planning Commission that the applicant should apply formal lock stone to the face of the garage, remove the brick, and apply stucco to the remainder of the residence in the colors presented in their application. Second? Second. Okay, roll call, please.

Commissioner Alborn? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Bruce? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes, motion is passed. Well, welcome back. All right, this brings us to the item number 13, lucky 13 on the public hearing tonight. This is use permit 26131. This is Venn by the Sea. Consideration of use permit amendment and design review for expansion of an existing Venn by the Sea four-line restaurant. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be presenting the Use Permit and Associated Design Review application for VIN by the Sea. Vin by the Sea is located at Sue Vecino Court, Dolores 2, northwest of 6th. The applicant has proposed expanding the existing Vin by the Sea full-line restaurant into a separate unit on the same parcel. A couple of years ago, the Planning Commission approved a use permit authorizing the original space with 26 interior seats, five at a bar, and 13 outdoor seats. The current use permit application requests an additional nine interior seats and an additional four outdoor seats. Here we have a site plan. You can see the original space occupies the south wing of this U-shaped building, and the applicant is proposing to expand into the unit at the northwest corner of the site, pictured here. There are several findings to be made for full line restaurants, all of which the commission did make for the establishment a couple of years ago. I will linger on the first bullet here, which says any sale of alcoholic beverages shall be subordinate to the primary full line restaurant use. And this stemmed staff's draft condition of approval, which the commission could strike, edit, or retain, which says omit the bar in the expansion unit. The municipal code states that no more than 20% of the total number of seats are at a bar or in a separate bar room. Staff's interpretation of this language with the or could be either at a bar or in a separate bar room. And as proposed, we have the bar in the original space and a second bar in the expansion space. The other findings for full line restaurants continue to be satisfied and we can return to these as needed. Here you can see proposed outdoor seating. Even with the additional four seats, all seating is proposed to remain immediately adjacent to the original space. The applicant was approved for an ancillary use to sell wine-related retail items, wine and other accessories. The ancillary use is proposed to go in the expansion space and it does meet the square footage requirements. And as I mentioned, outdoor seating can only be approved through a design review. So no exterior changes are proposed to the building. The design review is solely for the increase in exterior seats. These are the findings required to be made that the commission made a couple of years ago. And that concludes my presentation. Staff recommends approval of the use permit and design review with the one special condition about the bar. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, questions for staff? I have a question.

I remember when we approved the initial approval for the wind by the sea, there were discussions about, most of the time we talk about the kitchen and the way the chimney is going to be and everything else. So there will be no changes to the kitchen in this scenario, right?

There are no changes proposed to the original space or the kitchen. The applicant is here and can speak, but the food will be prepared in the existing kitchen and the expansion space does not contain a kitchen.

Okay, any other questions? Thank you. Okay, would the applicant like to make their presentation?

Good evening, everyone.

Thanks for staying so late. You guys are troopers, getting through all this stuff. Great to see you all again. So yeah, we would like to expand into the adjacent space. It's basically the same operation, just moved across. So no separate kitchen, food gets delivered, there's no food preparation or STORAGE THERE AT ALL. SO FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, MONTEREY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THEY ONLY REQUIRE THAT WE HAVE HANDWASHING SINKS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE SEPARATE AREA JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE SERVING FOOD AND THEY WANT IT CLOSE TO THAT. THE ABC CONSIDERS IT BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME PARCEL, IT'S THE SAME LICENSE THERE, SO THERE'S NO ISSUES THERE. WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS PART OF THE AREA WILL BE, IF YOU HAD THE LAYOUT UP THERE, small uh... area for our wine sales and ancillary sales, which we intended to have in the original space, but with all the ADA requirements for a new restaurant, that just disappeared pretty quickly. So that's why we're moving it there. Some storage, we just have no space to put extra tables, chairs, all the stuff that we just, you know, otherwise would get slept outside. We just don't want to do it. Nice, clean appearance. So we want to have the storage. And then about, oh, it's about a little more than a third of the space will be for What we call private dining won't necessarily be private, but predominantly for expansion. On Fridays and Saturdays, it'll be open. Other than that, we may have it for a luncheon, sit-down dinner, special chef's dinner, wine dinner, things like that. The reason that the bar is important is because there are things we need to service. We have a glass dishwasher there. We need to have the hand dishwasher there. We have some refrigeration for the wine and such. And space-wise, it's really just about It's not quite 10 feet wide, so it's very small. So the bar, in essence, covers all of that equipment there and allows the staff to be able to service the restaurant area. Outside of that, it's exactly the same hours, the same business, the same menu. And again, we are only wine and beer. We are not a full bar, so we don't serve any of that. So what we would like to discuss are a couple of the, what do you call these here? You call these? Yes, thank you. The conditions. And I think it's easy to go to the last page of it. So it's really 19, 20, 20, 23, and 24. So total number of seats, that does require additional water, which we've requested. So that is assumptive that that would be here. We did put this application in. As soon as we learned there was extra water for commercial, we put it in the next day. And somehow someone beat us to some of the water. So we were hoping to have more seats, but it is what it is. So the number of seats interior would be 35. It doesn't note in here that the exterior would go to 17. So I just want to make sure that that 17 number gets into the conditional approval. Number 21, exterior modifications and signage. We'd really like to put a small little sign in that corner there that's in line with Joaquin Turner, Nicole Cromwell. They have the little signs within there. We'd like to be able to put one up there if that's possible. The bar itself, we read that clause a little differently. Seats at a bar doesn't mean the bar is singular in an entire restaurant or seats in a bar room. We're not having a bar room. This is just another room that we're looking to have a service bar at. We would like to have a couple of seats to be able to be at that bar. Quite frankly, we'd like to be able to move seats between the spaces. I don't know how that works here, but that's kind of the plan. We have a lot of events in the other space where we might want to move seating over for locals to still be able to have a place to go event. So we'd like to not omit that bar, quite frankly. It's very important to our operation. Again, we're not an out-call place. People aren't bellying up to the bar. We do a lot of wine pairings and all that stuff, and people like to sit and talk with the SOM and eat their food right at the bar. So we'd really like to have that. The last one is number 23, fire sprinklers. I don't think that's appropriate to be in this one. So the requirement for us to sprinkle the building sits with the building, and that's already on an initial building permit. This building permit, I don't even know whether it's going to be our permit or the building owner, Sherry Palovneff's permit. So we don't really know why that would be in here as a condition. That's really a building department thing. And it's already a condition of our previous building code. So I just don't know why that would be in here as a condition. And the reason that is of concern to us is the time it takes to get these sprinklers in. I mean, our first job, we were delayed nine months. We couldn't open for nine months once we learned we needed the sprinklers. So you just never know how long this is going to take. And to be beholden to that unnecessarily would be another burden on our business. I mean, we lost probably $600,000, $700,000 worth of revenue and paid $70,000 worth of rent in an operation we couldn't use waiting for sprinklers when we didn't even know we needed them last time. So we request a little reprieve on that one. Outside of that, it's pretty much the same operation in another little space, so we hope you will side with us here and approve us tonight.

Thank you. So the bar, what do you want to do with the bar?

So it's really a service bar.

But you're talking about some seats at it.

We like to have seats there as well, yeah.

Okay, so then it's a bar serving right at a bar.

Right, so you could sit at the bar there.

Okay, all right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the... If you have a question, go ahead.

Hello, good evening. So you say that part of the purpose of the bar is for a glass dishwasher and a wine cooler and ability to chill wine. Yes. Is there no other way in the space that you could provide a butler's pantry with a dishwasher and...

Oh, I mean, we could throw a dishwasher in the back.

You could do it another way.

We could do it another way. So it makes it a lot harder on our staff, right? It takes out of our storage place. I mean, without a bar, we'll just put high tops there. I mean, that's what it'll end up to be, right? It'll just be seating. So we're just asking for the permanent bar in order to be able to put the plumbing there and put the stuff in the appropriate spot and to be able to use that space, you know, insofar as we use the other space as well as one contiguous restaurant.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Anything else? Great. Thank you.

Okay. Question for staff. So as long as they, if they have, they can have a, it seems to me they could have a bar, a service bar for staff. They can have wine in that bar so they can open the wine, put a glass and take it to the table. Is that allowed under the definition of a full line restaurant? I see what's problematic is having seats at this bar. I don't see that.

It's just the number of seats at the bar. Here's the language.

Okay.

We're limiting the seats at a bar or in a separate bar room, and that's across both spaces. The applicant suggests that this doesn't need to be an either or. 20% of the number of seats.

So they're already at 20% with their existing bar?

They are, but they're expanding their floor area and their seats. So it's not the matter of the seats, it's at a bar.

It's what now?

They're proposing two seats at the new bar in the new space. And the fact that there are more bar seats at a separate bar, that is problematic in staff's opinion.

Is that for two bars? This says, it says, states no more than 20% the total number of seats are at a bar or in a separate bar room. So that's an objective standard. So does this violate that objective standard with their proposing? Or is it just staff's opinion? What is it?

I think the language here says a bar singular. And that's why I added the condition that the business be limited to a bar singular. So I do believe the addition of a second bar is a violation.

So the issue is singular. So it says, it says where? So it says the applicant says, states that no more at a bar or in a separate room. What does that mean? What does in a separate room mean? That the bar is in a separate room or another bar in a separate room?

Staff's interpretation is it could be at a bar or a bar in a separate bar room. Like you can have your restaurant with only restaurant seating plus a bar room, but not a bar room plus another bar.

Any scenario where there's two bars. We're going to have to discuss this. I think there's going to be some disagreement on this. Okay. Any other comments? Do you have a question? Yeah, I have another question.

Go ahead. Another question for staff. Just questions at this time. Yeah. Regarding the applicant's comment about the fire sprinklers, is that not a fire code thing? Do we even play a role in that at all?

We're adding it as a planning condition of approval simply as a courtesy. striking the language from a planning entitlement would not affect the requirement that it is fully sprinkled.

That's a building requirement.

They'll have to put them in anyway.

So should it be here as a condition or should just building would handle that?

In years past it wasn't and then it maybe came as a surprise to some applicants. That's why it's our practice just to really cover our bases and

All right.

Put it out there early.

It's kind of a move point one way or the other. It's going to happen based upon what the building code requires. Okay. Answer your question? Good. Okay. All right. Let's get on with this public comment. So we have any hands up? Anybody else in the chamber wants to make any comments? Okay. I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commissioners. All right. Who would like to begin? You want to begin? You're so brave, Kevin. I'm like, I just jumped right in.

I'm going to go back to this draft condition. I was just talking about CMC 17140401.3.D. No more than 20% of the total number of seats are at a bar or in a separate bar room. This looks to me like a separate bar room. It's a separate room that has a bar. You were showing two out of eight seats, that's 25%. To me, this is objective. I mean, I don't see how we can get past that hurdle. So your point is? I don't think it is.

It's either a bar or a bar room. I kind of get the feeling that in a separate bar room means it's like a room that just has a bar in it. Well, it's a room that- Is that what your interpretation?

To me, it's a bar room. It's a bar. I mean, it's a room with a bar in it. It sounds like a bar room to me. So I don't, you know, maybe put only one chair there and now you have less than 20%. I don't know if there's a math game going on here, which is how do you stand on 20%.

Well, I think the objective standard is 20% of the total number of seats. And staff's interpretation is that it is a bar or a bar that is in a dedicated separate bar room. So it seems to me that the two bars is out, according to this. But then we're looking at it, and so the 20% becomes moot because we've got two bars.

I'm not sure I follow. Are we treating this as part of a collective bar that includes both of the bar sizes?

Well, the staff's interpretation is that it says a bar. So there's only one bar allowed. Now, you can have the bar in your restaurant with all the other seating, or you can have, as this says, or in a separate bar room, which would be a room which was just dedicated to the bar. It's a bar room. And you can have a total of 20% of the number of seats in that bar room. But it doesn't allow for another bar. with the 20% of the seats distributed between the two bars? I mean, I'm just talking it through.

No, no, that is still vague to me. So let me ask you, does the total number of seats that are at any bar on this parcel exceed 20%? No, right?

No, it's a total of less than 20%.

No. Staff's main issue is that there are two physical bars

So I'm looking at the municipal code, and what it says specifically is the applications, menus, and plans indicate that the business will primarily be a restaurant, full line, and that no more than 20% of the total number of seats are at a bar or in a separate bar room. So I think my take on that would be no more than 20% of the total number of seats can be located at a bar. And it could be there's two bars, but the bar being both of those. The service bar that I think that is being discussed here And I actually asked the applicant to just kind of respond to this. But the proposed room will have some retail sales in it. OK. Why would somebody be sitting at the service bar in the private dining room?

Come on up to the mic. Oh, sure.

On the layout, I don't know if you have the layout there. So the retail area is cordoned off, kind of on the side. So that's out of here. Then there's storage back room behind it. So really, we're talking about this other area here. We look at it as a frankly, the locals area.

So you're eating food at this service bar?

You get a menu.

So it's not a, quote, bar. It is actually part of the restaurant.

The physical bar itself, of course, it has to have an ADA lower area, 61 inches long. That would be our retail area unless someone was coming to sit there. So that's a space to have your cash register, what have you. And the other has... two or three seats, two seats or whatever it is here, available for that. And then the person in that room will be behind.

So it's your other bar, do you serve food?

Oh yeah, same menu across both areas.

Can I follow up on this? Am I correct in, and actually I lost staff this question, is there a reason, since this is one business, that they cannot, is there anything that would prevent them from shifting the seating from one space to another as needed?

Not that I see.

Other than not being able to fire code or whatever, but yeah. I mean, there's nothing that would, like in his case, If they want to do a 10-person private dinner, they could do a 10-person private dinner in this space as long as they are not exceeding the total.

I don't think the fire marshal looks at it that way. The whole point is...

If you can do the occupancy. I'm just saying.

Yeah, the fire marshal sets the occupancy. and that particular defined space is gonna have an occupancy, and they can't see that.

It may be higher than eight.

It may be, yeah, then they can shift their seating around.

Right, that's what I wanted to confirm, that they could do that. So as long as the total number of seats that are located at a bar area, whether it's a service bar or wine bar or whatever, doesn't exceed 20% of the total permitted seating, they should be okay.

I don't agree. In thinking about it just a moment, it's not that staff minds if it's six seats in this space or more or less, but the authorization that you're reviewing does have language about you're approving these plans and these plans show seats. So I might retract the ability to shift seats here and there you are approving these plans, these floor plans. Do you want to say something?

And this is for a use permit? Yes. Which will travel with the location?

The property. The property owner, yes. Not the business.

Not the business. And what are the total number of bar seats at the other, at your original location?

Five.

Five. So 5 plus 2 is 7, and that's less than 20% total if we include exterior and interior, right?

Yes, it's under 20.

So just to run the numbers, so you have 49 seats in the main restaurant. You're adding 9, right?

I'm sorry, say that one more time.

You have 49 seats in the main restaurant. We have 29.

We have 26 total seats currently.

Plus outside?

Plus outside.

Total to 49?

What do we have right now? We have... 35 and 14 is 30. Yep. Yep.

Okay. So you're adding nine seats to that?

So the external is... We're allowed 50% external... seats based on our total internal. So right now we have 26 internal, 13 external. Because of the only water available based on our square footage plus what's remaining in commercial, that allows us to go up to 35 internal and then 17 external seats. So we were adding...

So it's 4 to 2?

If you add them together, yes.

4 to 2. Oh, 52. Yeah. OK. 52. That means you can have 10 seats in the old restaurant. You only have five, right, at the bar.

No, so the bar seating only accounts for internal seats. The external seats don't count.

Only internal seats.

External is, they're just, it's just a, you're allowed 50% of your total internal. Total internal, you're allowed 20% at a bar.

So you have seven, you have 45 seats and seven at the bar, so you are 20%, you're done.

Correct.

So now, for the addition, you have eight seats. Actually, you need 10 seats to have two at the bar.

Right now, we have 26 total seats, so we are allowed five at the bar today. That's our limit. 20% of 26 today. By going to 35 total internal seats, our allowance would be seven. Seven total bar seats.

So the problem is that if these two groups are counted separately, you need 10 seats in the new section to have two seats at the bar. And you don't have that. You have only eight.

I got to interrupt you. We're not dealing with the language of the ordinance. It says a bar or in a separate bar room. There is no plural here in the ordinance. The a is not singular. Pardon? It's at a bar. At a bar or in a separate bar room.

But the A is not a singular.

A is singular. It doesn't say bars. It's a bar. That's singular. At a bar. That's singular.

So say more. How are you seeing, so expand on that. How are you seeing that play out here?

Well, I agree with what Stav says. They can't have two bars. Can't have another bar.

I want to add to this discussion and I'll apologize in advance for the question. So this is for a use permit and it travels with the land. Even though right now it's connected to a business that has another use permit across the courtyard. If this business should decide to vacate the space, there is a use permit for a full-line restaurant in this space that has no kitchen? Yes. Yes?

Right.

OK. That is all.

Well, that's an interesting point, observation, because the permit stays with the property. At that point, it seems to me the conditions of the use of a full-line restaurant aren't met. So the use permit disappears. It's been abandoned. Correct? Because it doesn't qualify as a full... The only way this qualifies as a full-line restaurant is because it's sharing the kitchen from the space across the courtyard.

Right. So if... The business operator ceases VIN here. The way that this use permit is described, it is the expansion of VIN Kitchen. So it is working in conjunction with the portion of the restaurant with the full line bar. Should he change his mind and say, well, I'm only going to focus on the original restaurant, and let's say the property owner finds another tenant to take this space, they will not be able to operate as an expansion event.

You could not have the landlord, because the landlord basically controls the use permit. We've seen this play out. So it's just the reality of the fact that these use permits stay with the property. The operators do not own the use permits. They can't take the use permits, take it to another location. So essentially, you're expanding your use into this other space. If you decide to not use that space any longer, or the landlord decides you should not cancel your lease on that space, she can't rent it to another tenant as a full-line restaurant because it won't qualify. So that's kind of off the table. So let's just get that out of there. So I think we're back to the question is, do you agree with staff's interpretation of the code, which says a bar or a separate bar room.

I do. I agree with staff's interpretation.

I don't. Okay. All right. Well, okay. Let's, I think we've far enough now where we can move to a decision. Thank you though. Appreciate your input.

Okay. I got to get my...

All right, so we have a resolution from staff with some conditions. And the applicant has asked us to ask us if we can have signage. Let's talk about the signage. So does he have to have a separate permit to have a sign? I mean, it seems to me there needs to be some identification of what this space is.

Signs are authorized through sign permits, not use permits or design reviews.

Okay, so they just have to file a separate application for a sign. And the sign code may not permit another sign. Okay, so that's fine. We'll leave that as is.

But we can usually have, we can have a sign one at each entrance, right?

Yeah, but it's a separate, all it's saying is this is a separate application. It's not part of this resolution. Let's just leave it at that. The fire sprinklers, that's already been dealt with. So basically, we're down to 24. And I think what we should do is just have individual discussion about that. So I'm going to start with Commissioner Ruse. What is your opinion? What is your interpretation for special condition number 24?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. You know, I'm sort of stuck on that one letter. So the question I'm asking myself is, can I get through the mental gymnastics and get to the point where I see this as a single bar that is distributed across two spaces, which is sort of what we're asking. Is this really one bar that's in two different places in the same business?

Keep in mind, two is plural.

Correct.

This is all about language.

Exactly. And that's why I use the term mental gymnastics or grammatical gymnastics. How do I get past that? And I'm not getting past it, is my point. I mean, I think it's a lovely design. I think it could be a great place to have dinner and all these other things. But I don't see how you get past this and have two seats at that bar. I don't know what the maximum occupancy for this room is. Is that something building looks at? They will. They will, okay, because that figure will include staff occupancy.

Can I just ask one quick question, staff? If there are no seats at this bar, and it's just a service bar where the servers can open wine, pour it into glass, and take it to the table, is it not a bar then, or is it still a bar?

I would recommend a design change on the interior to better delineate it as a service bar.

Okay, all right, but it can't be a service bar, you're saying? Yes. Okay, all right. So do you have any more comments?

No, that's it. That sounds like an easy way around it, though. It just happened to be just a service bar with no seats. I don't know if the design would have to be changed to get eight seats around a table. I don't know how much leeway there is around the sides of the table for evacuation purposes.

Okay, Commissioner Alba?

I support staff's recommendation that there should not be a separate bar in this new space. However, I'm not interested in producing the... Overall, I love this concept. I think it's absolutely a wonderful use of the space and it's wonderful for the business. I don't know if the applicant would like to or would need to resubmit plans that show how they would rework the space so that there are not two seats. I like the concept of a service bar very much, or who knows, they may want to redesign the space so that they do have room for their glass dishwasher, for their wine cooler, for their opening station. but I do support staff's recommendation.

Commissioner Locke? So what I'm hearing is that this should be redesigned so that there are not two seats at a service bar. that the service bar should maybe be shrunk a little bit to meet just the needs of this space, and that the applicant should reconsider the seating so that you don't get stuck with just a sixer table in the middle. Maybe you want high tops or whatever you might want. Because what I'm also hearing is by approving this floor plan, you're getting locked in place with that table design.

That's what I'm hearing.

Just a minute. Let's let us get through this. Okay, question for staff. Are they locked into this floor plan as far as the table layout? I thought it was just an occupancy. They can juggle them around, can't they?

We would have to reword the authorization in condition of approval number one, which says that you're authorizing these plans. You could change the language to say...

Something about flexibility.

That you're authorizing flexibility of seat and table arrangement. I'd like to see that in there.

Okay, all right, that answers that question. Chair, excuse me, I'm sorry, but one more question. If there was access to more water, would there be higher occupancy in this space?

I can't speak to the building code occupancy, but they are limited.

Yeah, that has to do with fire. Fire marshal has the ultimate say about that. It doesn't have to do with water. It has to do with the fire marshal.

But the applicant spoke to, because of how much water was available, that was... Yeah, but you can have all the water in the world.

You can't jam more people in the world.

No, I understand that. I'm just wondering if... If a redesign is what's recommended and approved tonight, is there a way to also look into the availability of additional commercial water?

There's no water available, right? At this time, there's no more commercial water available at the end. The applicant could apply for the council to transfer water between the various buckets, but at this time they did not apply.

But this also goes to my previous statement, which is flexibility to allow reshuffling of things as long as they meet fire and occupancy code. And if we could allow that flexibility rather than locking into a specific floor plan for this project.

Well, as I understand it, we can condition number one to do that. Okay, Commissioner Karapetkov, your feelings.

Well, the way I understand it is they have 26 seats now. They're adding nine, so they're going up to 45 in the main venue. And then they have another eight in the secondary location. So they have a total of 43 seats. That means eight seats at the bar maximum and... It shouldn't matter which bar that is, where exactly it is. Is it in the old facility, in the new facility? I think the purpose of the whole, we need to understand the purpose of this. The purpose is that in order for that to be a restaurant and not a bar, like the ones that we discussed when we discussed shock, for example.

Hey, David.

Yeah, so the difference is that in a full line restaurant, the majority of the people should be sitting at the table, and only maximum 20% should be at the bar. At the bar, the ratio is different, right? So that's the only reason why we have this 20%. So as long as we have no more than eight people sitting at the bar, we are fine. It's a full line restaurant. So now, do we get flexibility to shift seats between the two locations?

Yeah, but the question is, the question we're talking about is condition 24. It's about the bar, two bars. So what I was polling the commissioners on is, do you agree with staff's interpretation that only one bar is allowed?

I would say yes. That's the way it is.

OK. All right. That's my interpretation, too. So I would make a motion that we change condition number one to authorizing same-successors operate total number Okay, so the business shall operate consistent with the business description viewed by the planning committee. Just eliminate floor plan. Does that do it? Does that do it? Yeah, okay. Just eliminate the word floor plan from condition number one.

That allows them the flexibility to adjust the seats as they see fit.

And then... To the chair? Yes.

Can I just make a suggestion, just so there is more clarity 10 years from now, another planner picking up this condition? This what? I want to prevent another planner picking up this condition of approval 10 years from now and reading that it doesn't allow for the flexibility. So I would suggest that... adding after the end of the sentence where it says between both spaces is 35, except that seats can be transferred between the spaces provided that the total does not exceed 35 in the interior and or the, and the fire occupancy load. Just so it's very clear that we are, you are allowing the transferring seats.

Okay. So you got that, staff? You can get that wording. Okay. So your wording is, so it's going to say the business shall operate consistent with the business description reviewed by the planning commission date unless modified by conditions of approval herein, the total number. So it's the last sentence. So we're going to take out floor plan from that previous sentence, the last sentence. It's going to say total number of seats allowed by this use for between The two spaces is 35, and they can be distributed based upon the operator's discretion between the two spaces.

With no more than X number of seats at the bar.

Are we changing condition number 24 at all?

No, we're talking about number one right now. We're going to get to that. We're going to get to it. So does that meet your concern?

Yes. Yeah, that and just adding the language about occupancy and commissioner's laws. Okay.