Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes, that's how they left office. Only difference was mostly

There we go. Okay, without further fanfare, we will we'll call the regular meeting of the Carmel by the Sea Planning Commission to order. I want to welcome all of you today this beautiful spring day. We're all sharing in here. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alort here. Commissioner Carco here. Commissioner Lock here. And Chair Leage here.

Okay. The uh first item of business on our agenda is public appearances. Members of the public uh may address the planning commission on any matters of municipal concern which are not on our agenda today. Uh I want to remind you that uh all your comments are governed by the rules of the Brown Act. So at this time I'd like to invite anybody from the public who would like to address us on any items which are not on the agenda today which are matters of municipal concern to come up and speak to us if you'd like. You don't have to give us your name, but it does help. Nobody rushing the podium. So we have any hands uh up online? No, sir.

Okay. You missed your chance. All right, the next item um I assume we don't have any announcements. No announcements from No. Okay. Next item is a consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda considered to be routine in nature and usually do not require discussion, but any members of the public or planning commissioners may request an item be pulled for discussion or questions. We have um four items on the consent agenda today. We have the monthly activity report from the building department. We have the uh special meetings from the meeting minutes from the planning commission February 10th meeting and from our regular meeting on February 11th and then from our another special meeting on the 18th. So never let it be said that the planning commission does not meet a lot. So uh any of the planning commissioners have any questions? Anything pulled? Anybody from the public or online that wants anything pulled or questions? Okay. Then I will make a motion that we accept all the items on the consent agenda.

Second. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alboard. Yes. Commissioner Carco. Yes. Commissioner Lockach. Yes. And Chair Leage.

Yes. Motion is carried. Okay. The next item on the agenda, uh, orders of business. We have a discussion regarding the allegations by Ellen Barrett regarding the Brown Act violations and the city attorney is going to present that discussion. Thank you. Yes, I will. Thank you, chair. As indicated in the staff report um on March 5th, 2026, Helen Barrett submitted an email to the city alleging violations of the Brown Act during planning commission meetings on February 4th, 2026 and February 10th, 2026. Uh those are referenced in the email and those involve the Verizon application for approval of a cell site in the right ofway adjacent to Carmelo Street southeast of 10th Avenue in the city's single family residential R1 district. Uh the hearing that was scheduled for February 4, 2026 was continued to February 10 of 2026. The agenda description for the February 10, 2026 planning commission meeting reads DR25313 and UP25314 Verizon SEOA deployment consideration of a use permit, design review and coastal development permit for the construction of a small wireless facility on a replacement PG&E pole in the public rideway in front of Carmelo Street, 4 Southeast of 10th Avenue in the single family residential R1 zone. Um, in addition, there's uh reference in the in that agenda to the proposed squa action. Government code section 54954.2 of the Brown Act provides that the agenda shall contain a brief description of the item and further that the description generally not exceed 20 words. So there are there are three allegations uh by Miss Barrett uh asserting that there were violations of

the Brown Act. I have reviewed these allegations and find that there were no violations of the Brown Act by the planning commission at its meeting on February 4, 2026 or February 10, 2026. The first allegation is that the meetings of the planning commission on both those dates were not posted on the city's calendar. there. In response, I will say that there is no requirement in the Brown Act or any other law that a meeting be included on the city's calendar page. There is a requirement of the Brown Act that there be an agenda posted for regular meetings at least 72 hours in advance and 24 hours in advance for a special meeting. The city satisfied these posting requirements for the meetings of the planning commission on both February 4th and February 10th. The second allegation um by Miss Barrett is that there was a non-aggenda item relating to the macro tower on the Golden Bow Playhouse during the February 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting. In response, I will say that the Round Act requires, as I mentioned, a brief general description not exceeding 20 words. Um that's not a hard and fast rule, but that that that is just given as a um an estimate of what uh what it would be. It could be less, could be more. Uh an agenda description is not intended to identify every possible point that may be raised during a public meeting provided those points are related to the agenda description. Here, the Golden Bow Theater as a location for the cell facilities was related to the agenda description for the February 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting for a number of reasons, including the following. The agenda description is clear that the item involves an application by Verizon for a permit for

the construction of a small wireless facility. The city's municipal code, chapter 17.46, 46 is entitled telecommunications and wireless facilities and requires that the applicant propose placement of the facilities in locations with a least intrusive land use designation. This would necessarily involve a discussion of placement locations. This requirement of considering placement locations is consistent with the staff report statement that said that the Golden Bow is a potential viable location for a wireless facility. Furthermore, the proposed draft resolution that was attached to this draft report includes a recital regarding a report submitted by Verizon about whether the Golden Bell Theater could be made a viable location. The third allegation by Miss Barrett um is a reference to the February 10th, 2026 meeting and to a six-page writing submitted by uh Commissioner Alborne and a statement that hard copies were not available to the public via stacked copies, hard copies on on a table. So my response to this is that the writing was posted on the city's website prior to this meeting of the planning commission which is consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act. There was no requirement for hard copies of the writing to be placed on that table. So in conclusion, for the reasons I've stated, there were no violations of the Brown Act at the Planning Commission meetings on either February 4th or February 10th of 2026. And therefore there's nothing that needs to be cured or corrected. If the commission agrees, then the direction that's being requested is that the commission direct the city attorney to respond to the email from Miss Barrett advising her that there were no violations of the Brown Act consistent with my comments today.

So, I'm available if there's questions.

Uh just for clarification, what are the uh requirements for posting? Well, for the Brown Act, um the posting requirements are in terms of time, it's got to be at least 72 hours uh for the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting. And for a special meeting, it's 24 hours. And then in terms of the contents of the agenda, it needs to include a description, which is a general description, as I said before, generally not exceeding 20 words. So those are the posting requirements. Where is a po what what uh what uh uh qualifies as a posting for you know locations? Is it just online or posted out in front of city hall or

It's both. It's posted out in front of city hall and it's also posted online. I'm not sure. Do does the city post at any other public buildings uh besides the the kiosk out in front of posting is required um on and near the site um and then um distributed to residents depending on the type of permit either 100 ft or I think 300 ft. There's no periodical requirement for that. No, it is posted in the pine cone. It is posted in the pine cone. Okay. Well, I think it's just too good for people to know that. So then they will know where to look.

Certainly. Yeah, that's that's why it's posted on the kiosk. I mean, not everybody has a computer. So, um, it gets physically posted and it gets also posted on the website and it's at the post office also, isn't it? Yes. And I think Miss Yeah. Um, for the code, it's posted in front of city hall. It's posted at the library um on Ocean and Lincoln. And it's also posted um at the post office. So, multiple locations. Yes. Three. And those are uh described in the municipal code. Okay. Any other questions for the city attorney? Right. Thank you. Okay. I'll need direction. You can do it by motion. We're going to Yeah, we're going to have uh So, uh the motion would be if you want me to state it for you or if you make it yourself.

Pardon? Would you like me to state what I think the motion should be? Sure. Yeah. Do we make a motion? But I think first we need to open this up to the public for Yes. That's right. for any comments. So, at this time, I'm going to open up to the public for comments. Um, I would ask that you limit your comment time to three minutes. So, is there anyone here in the chamber that would like to address the planning commission at this time regarding this? Any hands up online, shall we? No, sir. Okay. I'm going to close public comments, open up the commission. Um, Commissioner Alurn, no comments. No comment. No comment. No comment. I'm good. No. Okay. Um then um are you in favor of Well then I'll make we'll hear the motion.

Pardon Mr. Per you're going to make the motion I can't make a motion but I could suggest language for the motion or you could yes make the motion yourself. Yeah I was I was going to go ahead and make a motion. Oh go ahead. So I would make a motion that we uh give direction to the city attorney to uh write a response to the u complaint. Is that is that sufficient the language advising her that there were no violations and advised that there were no violations of the Brown Act? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? No. All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alort, yes. Commissioner Carco, uh, yes. Commissioner Law, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion is carried.

Thank you, Brian. Thank you all. Have a good day. Okay, that brings us to the public hearings tonight. So, the first item on the public hearing is item number six. This is a design study 25377. located at Lorrison's 2nd southwest 10th two southwest of 10th and this is consideration of a combined concept and final design study for substantial alterations and a 27 foot edition. Can we have a staff report please?

Certainly. Just one moment. All right. I'll be presenting the Dolores 2 southwest of tenth project. It is a combined concept and final design study hearing and you'll also be considering the coastal development permit this evening. So the project site is a standard 4,000 ft lot and as I mentioned on site this is a substantial alteration project. They're proposing to add a 27 ft rear edition. They are altering the roof forms uh simplifying the overall roof roof uh forms, a modest increase in plate height, adding stone to the brick chimney, um and installing new hardy board siding and new windows and doors. Here we have our existing and proposed front elevations. Um it's the east elevation. You can see uh not too many changes on the front other than new composition shingle roofing, new siding as I mentioned, and new windows and a new door. And of course, the chimney. Here's our rear west elevation. The

uh gabled door opening is being eliminated and a new door proposed. Um this is our uh north side elevation. And here is a good view of where you can see the changes to the roof form. Uh simplifying the roof form. The deck that you can see there will be maintained in place. However, a new railing will be installed and new deck skirting, but the structure of the deck is proposed to be retained. And then this is our south elevation. As you recall on site, this is the the side that is non-conforming approximately 7 in from the property line. This is the the pop out there. Uh does well encroach into the minimum 3-ft side setback and will be retained in place. So to get into forest character, the city forester identified six existing trees. None are proposed to be removed and the applicant is planting two new upper canopy trees to satisfy the tree density. Here you can see the renderings with the uh 27 square ft pop out addition circled there. And as I mentioned, there's no change in ridge height uh but a very slight increase in the plate height. Uh here you can see where the applicant is proposing to retain roof um structure versus demolish the roof. Uh then there's new proposed roof shingles proposed for the entire roof, but uh that image on the left there shows the actual structure to remain versus be replaced. The finished details here, as I mentioned, uh Hardy board siding,

composition shingle roof, um a gray and cream color palette, and irregular stone veneer on the chimney. The light fixture meets the city's lumen levels. Uh it's a 27 square foot edition with no increase in height. So staff did not identify any uh view or privacy impacts and we have not received any correspondence from neighbors or any other members of the public. There's a few non-conforming aspects to this property. As I mentioned, the southside setback and also the composite side setback. Additionally, they have a parking pad in the front setback which we wouldn't approve today, but it is existing and proposed to be retained. And then they're over their maximum allowed sight coverage. So, uh, per the code, if you're adding floor area, you need to remove double that amount of floor area of sight coverage. So, they are removing um as much sight coverage as they're removing a little bit more sight coverage than they need to to allow for that addition. And there are some conditions of approval that speak to the nonconformities and how they need to be retained. Um, and the site brought into uh we'll we'll inspect the site to make sure they're not adding any new site coverage. um only taking out um and then this blue text here just speaks to um the fact that while we don't have original plans for this house, it's a 1923 cottage. We also don't have any violations on file that speak to, you know, that South pop out being we don't know what what when that dates to. But we have no reason to believe that um uh this is not a legal non-conforming

dwelling. And the code does say that you can repair or alter a non-conforming structure as long as it doesn't increase non-conformity. So while the applicant is proposing to replace a window uh shown there at the very bottom of your screen, that kitchen window over the sink, um replacing the window doesn't increase the fact that the wall uh encroaches into the setback. One one topic that staff would like planning commission input on is the uniformity of the window styles. Uh the design guidelines speak to uniformity of window materials and styles and um at times styles can be viewed to include configuration. So, as you'll see in the type column, the applicants proposing casement, fixed, hung, uh, and sliding windows, and we'd appreciate, uh, commission input on would they like to see more better uniformity of window configurations? and staff does recommend um that you find the project exempt from uh SQA review and approve the concept concept and final combined and the coastal development permit. Happy to answer any questions.

Questions for staff. Go ahead.

Thank you, Miss Wallace. Um, I have a question and it could surely be because of my the freshman nature of my sitting here at the planning commission, but I I would like to understand better um the nonconformity and um and the non and not having a need to bring it into conformity. Um, you know, I was looking at our code 173650A on non-conforming uses and that does speak does state no building that contains a non-conforming use shall be enlarged by increasing the floor area. Um, am I misunderstanding what it means by non-conforming use? I believe the use would speak to the fact that it's a it's a residential use and that is not changing. So, the use is not changing.

Okay. um residential proposed to remain residential. Mhm.

And then um the the the the demolition threshold, right? That isn't that another piece that's another piece of um our code that if we demo a certain percentage, then we must bring the entire structure, act as though it's new construction, right? We do have a demo plan in the plan set and the applicant did do the calculations for the percentage of exterior walls being demolished. It is less than 50%. And the portion of wall in the setback that's non-conforming is not being touched. So that is remaining. Um

but and as far as the review process from planning, they went through the same process as if you were demolishing the house. So they still went through the preliminary site assessment. uh requirement the the treaty evaluation uh and the the concept in hearing. Does that answer your question?

I I think so. I one one more question and it has to do with um the the the cladding um removing all of the cladding and also all of the the roof and making those changes. Does does that fit in? I mean removing all of the cladding as is part of the demo process. Um, would that be included in the 50% demo threshold or or and also all of the the roofing and changing the roof? We're looking at the the structure of the wall like the the framing structure and so no. And we're considering the recladding to be repair.

H So cladding doesn't wall cladding doesn't doesn't fit into that demolition definition. We pretty regularly approve um we could approve recladding at a staff level and know it doesn't constitute demolition of the the resource just just the the the skin or the siding per se. Perfect. Thank you.

Does that sound has anything to add? Um the only thing I would add is if you look at demolition in two kind of separate categories in this particular case is one does it trigger looking at the project as if it were a demo rebuild. That's when we're doing you know the 50% calculation of the total of the project. And then when it comes to demolition of a legal non legal non-conforming portion of a structure, are they triggering a demo of that that legal non-conforming portion? So in this case, as presented as proposed, the legal non-conforming wall on that side can remain. It's not triggering, it isn't triggering a rebuild or a demolition where we would then require them to pull it within the

but we are it is being described as shoot I'm looking for the actual uh here um in the staff report I mean it is characterized as a substantial alteration of the exterior you know and as substantial alteration and again this is my freshman you know with the opportunity to ask these questions you know, removing all of the roof, removing all of the cladding, replacing all of the windows. Um, that's quite a bit of demo. And so I'm trying to understand, um, what the city how the city looks at that. Um, and so that that's the source of my questions.

I think the distinction is the structural part of the wall. Is that in our code? It just doesn't seem clear because it talks about well I don't know that's a good qu I it's not in front of me specifically but I know that's how we've approached it in the past. It's a structural part of the wall. So that would be you know if the wall in this case the wall is is I think it's a woodframed wall. Although I did ask the owner if that was single wall construction. There may not be a uh a sort of a stud wall in there. So we're talking So it's more the frame like if the framing if the if the framing changes typically it refers to the the structural part of the wall not the interior or exterior

the cladding wall covering which um which could be considered a repair. You could have damage to that. Although we did have a pretty controversial application, I don't know if it was last year, the year before about uh a situation where a a wall had they as they opened it up, they found a lot of damage, dry rot and termite damage to the structural part and then there was a question as to whether it triggered the uh the 50%. The demo

planning commission said it did. Then it got appealed to council and council said it didn't. Well, the 1504 uh defines wall cladding as all exterior materials of a building, including wall surfaces, windows, doors, and chimneys. Um, but I if if if the um if the precedence and the interpretation is more structural than uh the the wrapping, then um I I accept that as the precedence. Thank you. If I remember,

if I remember correctly, we've said back then when we discussed this project that uh if somebody opens a wall and we think that this wall is going to stay and they open it and see that it's all rotten and has to be replaced, then we have to you know the building department has to be notified for a decision, right? Yeah. Because it fall it falls it falls under repair. Yeah.

So you could open up a non-conforming wall, but the language in in the code allows for repairs and then you could repair it as long as it stayed in the same place. It could be argued that you're not increasing the the the nonconforming conformity. That's that's another part of this equation is if you were increasing the nonconformity. Right now the project is conditioned so that this is the demo plan that you all are approving and it does not show demolition that while I believe the architect is with us online um we could speak to him about how he plans. I think we're just kind of having a general discussion here about this.

Yeah. and and I'm I'm still I'm unsold on the U 173650A non-conforming uses. Um, no building that contains a non-conforming use shall be enlarged by increasing the floor area. Um, in this case, our floor area increases under 30 square feet, I think, isn't it? But it's still adding floor area.

Yeah. I remember a a project several years ago that uh we got into this they wanted to enlarge a nonconforming set of nonconformities and uh there were quite a few discussions about I can't remember I think ultimately was resolved they were able to to do the work that was proposed but I I we had discussions about that. All right thank you. So that that is uh that is something that probably we need to get some clarification on in the future. Well, and we we could I suppose I mean this this um DS25377 it's a request for a concept and final. Mhm.

I suppose we could we could just leave it at concept and then bring it back with final if we do want. Well, let's let's leave that for our discussion. Okay.

I think at this point we're just getting questions answered. So, are there any more questions for staff? Okay. Um, at this time, I'm going to open it up to the applicant. Uh, just want to request that the applicants limit their initial comments to 5 minutes, that the public listen limit their comments to 3 minutes. I will, if you need additional time, uh, just let me know when you're starting your comments. I'll grant that. And I also uh allow the applicant to answer any questions that come up during the uh the public comments at the end of the public comments. So with that, I'd like to invite the uh is is Adam here to uh is he going to make any

Yeah. So Adam, you want to go ahead and make your presentation? Was was Adam planning on making a presentation or the owners here? Yeah, it's going in today. Okay.

Hello. Hi. Yes. Good evening, Cheryl La Page, members of the planning commission and staff. My name is Arnard. I am here on behalf of Alan Chesselik, the architect representing the owners of this house. and we're here tonight requesting your approval uh for this uh concept and final design study. Uh this project is mainly a modest uh update to the existing uh cottage. It does include um an addition at the rear. It's very small, 27 square ft. Um but it's the project is also mainly uh an improvement of the roofs and exterior walls. Um basically we are uh using more fire resistant materials and we are also uh proposing new upgrades to the to the site uh using new fences and uh updates to the existing deck. Uh we believe that this design is in scale with the existing house and uh it's appropriate in height since uh the reach uh stays the same and uh the addition is at the back uh so there are no problems with the uh privacy impact. Thanks again for uh the recommendation staff and uh happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Can you uh speak to the consistency of the windows?

The consist about the windows. Uh uh there are two topics here. Uh one is existing. There's one existing window to remain which is the one at the kitchen of the south. Uh this is the only original window of the existing cottage and we want to keep that as the element that gives character to the house. Um so we're matching all the rest of the windows to that window. And then regarding uh the comment on the uh style uh we designed the windows uh based on uh the on the natur on the natural ventilation. So um we believe that uh we can have different st types of openings um but all windows uh keep the same style meaning the same material and the same standards. Okay. Any other questions for the AR? You're the AR. You're also an architect working with Adam.

Yes, I am. Yeah. Yes. Questions? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Um, at this time, I'd like to invite members of the public to address the planning commission regarding this application if they'd like to come forward. Do we have any hands up online? No, sir.

Okay. And uh I'm going to close the public comments, open up to the commissioners. Uh Commissioner Katco, you want to begin or Yeah. Yeah. Um I I think this is a very conservative remodel and I think we should encourage remodels like that where the initial structure basically stays in stays intact, gets renovated. um new roof, new siding, insulation, electrical, but it does not increase in mass substantially, doesn't get a second story, etc. Um I had some concerns about a non-conforming wall, similar to uh Commissioner Albert. Um but I think I understand the logic behind um this provision and I'm not sure if the code communicates it correctly but this provision of keeping the inconformity intact even though you're remodeling the place. Uh this house is actually a very good example. If we are to try to fix the nonconformity we will basically um change the entire house. uh the kitchen will become unusable, uh the bathroom will become unusable, the living room will become smaller. So there a bunch of things that were going to change. So if you only have that alternative, if you put this alternative in front of the homeowner, they have no other choice but to demolish the entire house and build a new house on this place. Um so we I guess I guess we recognize that is a nonconformity but say it's for the betterment of for the for the best of the community and keeping the house in a small uh format not increasing it not demolishing it not completely replacing it we can accept that. So I think I understand the logic behind it. Um the increase of square footage is is really

small. um if they did not change the siding, they would actually qualify for track one, right? Because there's only 3% increase of floor area. Everything that is under 10% is considered track one. Um so the only reason why they in track two is because they're changing the exterior of the house, right? Um I think we should support that. I I I wish all of the projects or a lot substantial percentage of the projects that we see here are like this one where people do not expand substantially the house, do not go up and sideways, but keep the basic structure and maybe add a little bit to make it more livable and modernize it by improving the siding. We saw the siding is not looking good, that the roof is not looking good. There's probably no insulation in the walls. We have to fix that. And these old houses have old electrical systems that need to be replaced. So I think that's the that's the key. Uh remodeling is becoming very very expensive. And if you push people towards demolishing the house and they don't have the financial means to do it, you end up somebody buying the house and flipping it and you know becoming maybe making a rental out of it or second home. Uh what we want to do is to keep the people who live in the house who have lived in the house for a long time. Give them the opportunity to improve the living conditions and not make major changes because we know every every time there's a major remodel the square footage grows, the height grows, um the the whole complexity of building a new house and the construction noise and the impact on the community. This is a lot of negatives to fully replacing a house. So I am I am for uh approving this uh project as a um concept and final. Uh I think the architect did a good job um

hopefully achieving the goals that the homeowner had in terms of modernizing the house uh without major impact on neighbors and the community as a whole. Um I didn't see any conflicts in terms of materials. Um the windows I guess if there's any way to simplify them it's fine but I don't think that this is an important item here in terms of deciding whether to proceed or not. Uh in general I think this is a very good project that we have to support and encourage people to bring this type of projects to us. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Lock, you want to make some comments?

Sure. Um, I'm actually going to go down the track with Commissioner Aubornne on this. Um, and I'm looking at MUN code 17.36.050 non-conforming uses where A, which is the first thing you see. No building that contains a non-conforming use shall be enlarged by increasing the floor area or building and the rest of it doesn't really matter. It is an increase in floor area. There is a non-conforming use. Um I don't see how we can support this and I would ask staff um whether um you can get better direction on that. Please hold it up and look at it together. Yeah. Non-conforming use uses use

use. Yeah. It so no building that contains a non-conforming use. So we have said this is a non-conforming use. Not a not a use. It's not a use. Okay. What what is the the way we were looking at that code section was if it contained let's say a business um that the would be a non-conforming use in the residential zone um so it would be like a would that be defined by the zoning location would be defined by the zoning non-conforming use yeah well I mean the use if the zoning is for um something you know specific and then the

they want to do something which isn't allowed in that zoning that's you can't have that that's changing use would agree with that as well. Yeah. Um well and would you consider it a nonconforming encroachment kind of like a non-conforming structural location or you could have cuz it's it's located in the setback or you can have non-conforming as to sight coverage. But isn't it floor area? It's it's got to be a non-conforming use because it's it's sitting in it because it exists where it doesn't belong. But the use is tied to the land use or the zoning designation. So that's that's how those two connect.

Agreed. So there's two different nonconformities nonconformities. So 1736508 doesn't refer to residential property. Is that what you're saying? It can't. It can. if you had a amusement park in your residential property that's non-conforming. Why? Why? I don't know why they would use that language if I mean because we don't have amusement parks here. That was just an example.

I mean, but you know what I'm I mean, you understand what I'm saying. If there was a a medical office in the R1, that that's not allowed in the R1. Yeah, if you have somebody running a business out of their garage. Okay. That's that's a kind of non-conforming use that happens in the residential area occasionally. I mean, I could take this a step further. 17.36.030, 030 which is alterations or enlargements of non-conforming buildings and structures. And in this case it says you can the structure may be maintained, repaired and altered um as long as it does not increase the nonconformity which it is not doing in this case.

Uh the second portion of this is alterations, repairs and remodeling that enlarge extend or increase a nonconforming feature shall be prohibited. They're not doing either of those. So, I think in this case, um, they would be able to do a remodel with an addition on it. But I think I do agree if you're looking at uses by type of residential versus commercial and etc. That that one section probably applies more to um to whether it's a non-residential, non-compliant use rather than structure.

Yes. Yes. So in that case, my comments um I don't really have anything to add to what um Mr. Carrick Petco said. Um I think this is the aesthetic is much better with the proposed design. Um that the um I I think there are a number of different window styles and it would be nice to have more uniformity with that. Um and um no, I think I think this is an improvement to the neighborhood. So, I don't I don't really have anything further. Thank you, Commissioner Alurn comments.

Yes, thank you. Um I I agree with with my fellow commissioners um about the improvement in the design and the style. Um I I do look at this be because I do think that the nonconformity is is rather extreme, especially for the neighbor that is next door. though we I'm sure I I presume they were noticed and they did not speak towards uh towards that for this hearing. So that that means something to me. Um because this would be the opportunity if if code required a correction of the nonconformity, this would be the opportunity to do it. Um it's not likely that this particular property will be undergoing a renovation anytime soon. Um, I I'm I'm still not sure that actually I am sure that I'm not sold that removing all of the cladding and the roof materials and the windows doesn't actually contribute to the 50% demo threshold. However, um that that has to do with the way that I'm reading the code and I'm still a freshman commissioner and I'm learning how it how that particular code is interpreted here in town. So that ends my comments.

Okay. So, uh, questions I have about this are with regards to the, uh, residential building code. And my understanding, if you have a wall that is within 1 ft of the property line, then it has to meet certain fire resistance characteristics. And, uh, you have to have a 1hour firewall. That's got to be inside and out, which means you got to have a fireresistant wall covering on the exterior. and you have to have Typex on the inside and you can't have any windows. So, I'm wondering how you're interpreting this. It seems to me, I mean, there's kind of a you could say they're replacing the window, it's a repair, but it seems to me that once they've they're going to take off that siding, replace that siding, then then they've got to bring it into conformance with this the the fire requirements of the building code. And I wouldn't I mean that typically happens at on the building uh review side of it, but it certainly affects the our review here because there's a window that's being proposed to be replaced. So staff have some comments or direction on that.

Go ahead. Yes. So um they can replace a window and have a window within the 3-FFT setback, but the window has to be fixed and it has to be fire rated. Um, but I think you bring up a good point. Are you sure about that? Yes, I just confirmed that with the um Okay, because this this talks about wall openings. We also have a So if if the window meets meets the 1 hour requirement, then it's okay. It cannot open. It cannot operate. It's has to But it's got to meet the 1 hour. Yes, they're not cheap, but you're not sure about that. They're not cheap, but but they make them. Okay.

Is that in our conditions of approval? Does that need to be? Well, I I mean I like it's it's a building building uh building code issue. So, I mean, however our plan, you know, building code uh reviewer approaches it. But but I but what staff staff was saying is that it can be replaced as long as it meets the fire rating. But then that goes to your conversation on um how windows operate and whether you want consistency. In this particular case, you you don't want those to to and this one is proposed to be fixed. I wasn't sure based on that table which one there was a casement fix. I don't have the window schedule in front of me, but

it sounds like there was an appetite to reduce the the the window configurations down from four or five regardless. But if you did, we could still have those the window and the setback be fixed even if you wanted the the rest of the windows to Yeah. match in terms of configuration. I I I I I share the concern of the commissioners that, you know, they have a a pretty egregious non-conformity here, which potentially has an impact, safety impact on the neighborhosing to work on the house. If it was I was the owner, I'd fix it cuz I think it's it's a bad situation,

but we can't in we can't enforce them to do that as long as they stay within the uh the language and requirements of the ordinance. So that's that's just my opinion and I don't own the property so my opinion doesn't count regarding that. Um okay so uh any more discussion on this? So if if they decide to not increase the floor area by 27 square ft stay within the same footprint of the house would that be a problem with the nonconformity? No. Right. M

because it's not it's not on that it's not within the nonconformity. Is that correct? It's not they're not changing the non-conforming feature other than replacing no replacing a window. Yes, replacing that window. One window in in the non-conforming setback. One window just it'd be required to be fire rated and it would trigger that, right? Okay. I mean that that would be an option if that was like a three bathroom house, but this is a single bathroom house. So they square foot. It should be okay. They they need to be able to increase it to, you know, be 27 square feet. Yeah.

Okay. We have a resolution from staff. Just making sure I got the right resolution here with a number of special conditions. Uh 28 is just acknowledgement of the requirements of the building permit. 29 is um copper gutters downspouts not permitted. 2030 construction management. 31 uh demolition and nonconformities.

Um 32 was a site coverage compliance. 33 is right away uh eliminating those or was it a wind? Oh, what do we want for 34 in window configuration uniform? Yeah, that's that's 34. That's so a staff has a condition that the applicant shall submit revised plans prior to building permit issues that addresses planning commission direction regarding number of different proposed windows. So, what's our direct? We can strike it. It's just a draft condition. Pardon? We can strike it if if Well, I just want to get it clear. I don't think I got a clear direction from the commissioners how they feel about that. Could we could you bring the plans up again so we could have a a reference? Yes.

And and while she is doing that um no need for sprinklers to be added given this level of alteration. No, no, I don't think it doesn't trigger you. You have to uh there again you have to remove 50% of the walls to trigger the fire sprinkler. Got it. Thank you. So, are we uh we're going to look at the windows? Look at the window schedule. Can bring that up.

I don't have the floor plan keyed to the schedule, but I can look it up here. Could Could we see the rendering maybe first? Certainly, that would help. Or here you can kind of you can see the um

see it kind of looks like they're consistent on the elevations. They're just different on different elevations. Yeah. And I think one of the things they want to do is maintain that the uh the entry they I guess has a living room window. It's it's a um Yeah. So there you can see I think Are they proposing a uh a casement there with two casements with a fixed casement flaking the chimney fixed? Mhm. Um is what what's the C window on on the uh on the window schedule? It's that one there. the front, the large one on the the facade.

It looks like they're m are they maintaining pretty much the original? At least in the front, they look close to the original, but and what is K? Is K the the window that needs to be fixed and fireproof? That's kitchen. That's the kitchen window. Yeah, there's that side. There's two two windows, isn't there? I think there's one that faces the uh the south too, doesn't isn't there? Because that K appears to be in the separate. No, that's not the That's the west. Where's the south elevation? Can we see that for a moment? Yeah. Yeah, there's a window on the south elevation.

So, that window is I can't I can't read the uh label the schedule label. J and there's a L. So what? Let's confirm that that's a fixed window on the uh schedule. J J is sliding. J is sliding. Yeah. So that's that's not a that's not a fixed window. Well, condition number two requires compliance with the building code. So yeah, I mean they're going to have to comply with the building code. So, but as far as the aesthetics and how it looks and the size, I think it's

Mhm. it seems to be fine. Okay. I would agree. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't see I mean, they're they're consistent throughout the uh the elevations and so forth. So, I don't I mean, you could we could require them to eliminate the uh the the single hungs and then put casements in if you want to get more consistent. Mhm.

The windows in the public right ofway visible from the right of way appear to be consistent with what exist what is existing. Um I wonder why they went to they did a a a mix of casement and uh double hung. Is is the C window the one the large one on the uh the street elevation? Yes. Yes, that will be. And that's fixed. Well, that's fixed. Kind I'm kind of wondering why they don't have a side casements. Yeah. Casement uh flanking the the fixed portion of it. It's kind of unusual.

Usually that would be a casement fix casement. I would agree. Which would provide more more ventilation. That's kind of unusual. I mean, it's their choice, but we're just concerned with consistency. I'm more concerned about consistency from the u visible from the right ofway. Um and if I imagine there must be reasons why they have this um this mix.

Well, they're adding um mullions to all the windows which I think provides a much more consistent look. Also, it's more in character with the cottage. So, um I don't particularly have an issue with what they're recommending. My my only concern was that the u the windows and be, you know, meet the code as far as in the uh because of the uh reduced setback.

Okay, I can go with that. And and I I do have a a a final comment. Um, oh, we do have one more special condition, but I, um, I would like to request from our planning director, um, a private tutorial on understanding, um, demo and, uh, cladding and all that goes with that so that I can understand it better. So, thank you. Sometime in the future, you got it. Thank you. Okay.

But I interrupted you, chair. We have condition. Um, so, uh, so we're going to leave we're going to eliminate condition, uh, 34 and, um, condition 35, I I think we should leave that. There's staff is just recommending that they alternate the grape stakes to create an open design, which is supported by our guidelines. Yep. So, with that, I'll make a motion that we accept the the resolution as per staff with the elimination of special condition number 34. I I'd second that motion. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alport, yes. Commissioner Carov, yes. Commissioner Law, yes.

And Chair Leage, yes. The motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to the next item of the public hearings. This is item number seven, the design study. This is 25356. The Dale project consideration of a concept design study for demolition of the existing residence and a one-story single family residence and construction construction of a one-story and a one-story detached garage carport located on San Carlos Street. Have staff report, please.

Thank you, chair. This is a typical 4,000t lot. They're proposing to demolish an existing 1,168qt home uh that has a 222 foot parking pad and construct a 1,585 ft one-story home uh with a new detached carport uh currently proposed to be 215 square ft. Here are the story polls the commission viewed on site today. The city forester identified two trees on site. One of which is significant and one is not. An elm is significant and the acacia is is not significant. Uh the proposed project involves uh removing the acacia tree. So one of the conditions is to uh pull a permit for that proposed removal and the uh con the condition there the project is also conditioned to meet the required tree density of three upper canopy and one lower canopy. And so uh the applicant has communicated plans to incorporate two new Monterey Cypress prior to final details hearing so that the tree density will be met. The significant tree does have a six-foot root protection zone, uh, which is going to require a slight redesign of the preliminary drainage plan. So, that's something that we'll be working on prior to final details to, uh, keep all cut cutting work out of the the root zone. Uh, here you have the roof plans existing on the top there and proposed on the bottom. Um the the applicant can speak to um the the design of the varied roof forms

with the gables and the cross gables. Um we do have 12 and 12 pitch proposed for both the house and the carport which is a a steeply sloped roof. Uh the proposed skylights are not street facing. The design guidelines do speak to roof pitch and roof forms. They say low horizontal building forms are encouraged and in general more moderately pitched roofs are preferred. The design guidelines do say that steeply pitched roofs can be used on two-story buildings. However, the proposed project is a one-story building. So, uh, the commission can deviate from the design guidelines when the project achieves all of the applicable objectives as well as or better than, um, strict adherence. So, that's something we're we're looking for guidance on prior to to final details. Uh, here's the rendering showing the steeply pitched roofs. Um, excuse me for not finishing this slide, but the house will be set back. I believe it's 18 ft 2 in from the property line. Um the carport I believe is about a foot from the property line. There's also a very large window proposed for the the southern portion of the um facade and the design guidelines speak to um human windows uh that should be human scale. um says that in in a few different ways here, but staff is requesting input on this combined window with transom on top and whether this feature is considered human scaled. Uh here we have our south elevation existing on top, proposed on bottom. And we um viewed the south elevation from

the neighboring property today on our site tour. Excuse me. This is the the north elevation. This is what we we saw on our site tour and the rear elevation. Uh the project involves a detached carport in the front setback. So the planning commission is required to make findings uh to allow for this. The proposed carport um does meet these requirements. that doesn't exceed 12 ft in width, 250 ft in floor area, or 15 ft in height. And then there's a few additional findings uh that speak to how at least 50% of the ride ofway needs to be landscaped, and the applicant is proposing to do this. Um there are no no trees that will be impacted by placing the the carport in the front setback. Uh finding three speaks to free and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles. So, while San Carlos does have one of our our higher speed limits in town, the road is flat and there are no light large trees in the wide ride rightway that would impede driver visibility. And then pedestrians typically use the east side of the street where there's a sidewalk rather than the west side where this property is located. And then here I have the dimensions. The carport is going to be 13 ft 7 in from the street edge. Uh the photos here are photos of existing uh garages in the front setback much like the proposed project um would be designed. And then finding four speaks to how the development would be in scale with adjacent properties and neighborhood context. And uh staff found that a carport as opposed to a a garage does allow for more views into a site um more than more

so than an enclosed garage would. And then it complies in terms of floor area and height and lastly that it would add diversity to the streetscape. Um a quick survey of the subject block face shows that there are both many detached garages in the front setback. Some properties don't have anything in the setback, but this will be the only home with a carport in the front setback. So, staff does feel like it meets this finding and will add diversity to the streetscape. Preliminarily, these are the finished materials. Uh the applicant is still considering whether to use like a straight edge wood shingle or more of a scalloped edge. And then, um we're working on reducing the the number of light fixtures for simplicity's sake. So we'll come back to you with more finished materials at the next hearing. In terms of uh view light and privacy impacts during the preliminary site assessment and while um writing the staff report, staff didn't identify any such view light privacy or neighborhood compatibility impacts. However, we did receive late correspondence uh after the publication of the staff report um including a number of concerns from the north neighbor. So, we toured this site today. Uh, I'll speak to the neighbors concerns number four and five on this slide, namely loss of views and light and then design concerns setback and compatibility wise. Uh, in terms of uh views and light, the the proposed project is a one-story home uh well under the required height limit for one-story homes. Um there is presently a non-conforming setback. The existing home is closer than 3 ft to the property line and the proposed project

will pull it out of the setback to comply. So it's going to be um cited further away from the north neighbor and that the staff find the project to be compatible with the with the neighborhood character. Uh the neighbor also expressed concerns about construction impacts uh noise, dust, etc. And our director will speak to those those concerns. Uh here you can see the setbacks that I was mentioning and the front setback as well. While the proposed home is set closer to the street than the current home, it is still at 18 ft 2 in uh behind the required 15t setback. The staff recommendation is to accept the concept design um today. Okay. Questions for Seth. I have a question.

Yes. Um, so you said that the right of way would be 50% of the rightway would be landscaped. Yes.

Okay. And um is that a requirement that do we does it have to be I guess I'm concerned that San Carlos Street because of its location to Sunset Center all of that right away is very important for parking and um so if it's landscaped that'll probably mean that you're losing some on street parking. Um anyway, just wanted to consider that. Um, and actually that was the only question that I had. Thanks. This is a a required finding to put a either a garage or a carport in the front step back.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner. Um, Miss Wallace, thank you. Um when we had our site visit today, there was a rather tall, a rather large tree, a very close uh well maybe perhaps in the front setback and I believe you had you had mentioned that the forester has determined that that tree um yeah either can or is allowed to be removed. That is an acacia. The forester said it's not a significant tree. Uh we don't have an approved permit yet to take the tree down, but that's part of the proposed project is to um remove that tree.

And is there Thank you. And is there a plan I don't I don't recall if we had a landscape plan yet, but is there um a plan to replace that tree with something? Right now there's a proposal to do an eastern red bud red bud in that location. Um, we can certainly ask the applicant about their landscaping plans, but right now in that in that area in eastern Redbud, Red Bud, excuse me. And also, uh, Commissioner Lock looking at this, this finding says a natural and forested condition. Um, so the commission

so to how they consider natural. Yes. Okay. Thank you. for the finding make to the support the carport in the rightway. I mean not in the rightway but the in the setback dirt could be considered natural. Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Okay. I'm going to invite the applicant architect to come up and make their presentation.

Thank you Katherine for your thorough report. Thank you commissioners and for walking through the project with us and for your time today. Um, my name is Merritt Holly and I'm the architect um, an applicant representing Melissa Dale who is the homeowner. She's a a professor who hopes to retire in Carmel and spend her time uh, full-time here when she's able to retire and she'd love to attend this meeting, but she's actually undergoing a very intense cancer treatment, so she doesn't have the energy to attend. So, I'm here on her behalf. I just wanted to address a couple of things that Katherine brought up in the report. Um well, first I did want to mention and address the letter that we received from the northern neighbor. We're absolutely sympathetic to their situ situation. They've clearly lived in their homes for a long time and they value the environment and we appreciate that. Um, like Katherine mentioned, we will of course comply with all city construction regulations related to dust, noise, and working hours. And we would assert that from a planning perspective, the the project remains within all zoning limits and staff has confirmed that it does not create privacy or view impacts. Um, and then in relation to a couple of items that were kind of focus, first I would discuss the roof pitch. I know it's not necessarily um something that's constricted or specific um in the code it's recommended. And in our case, we loved we were inspired by Sunset Center down the street and buildings um like this one with a steeper pitch and sort of a tutor style. And we thought it would introduce a kind of variety to the streetscape and is a little bit more English and just sort of charming. We've kept this even though

the the the pitch is steep, the plate heights are low. So the scale is human scale. It's comfortable. In some cases, the plate heights are as low as seven 7 and 1/2 ft or 8 ft. So it it doesn't feel like it looms over the street in the way that an institutional building with a steeply pitched roof might. Um and then again to to address the large window at the at the streetscape elevation. First of all, it would be screened behind sort of an additional layer of carport. And secondarily, um if you if you look at the size of the window panes themselves because they're divided by, you know, mountains, the panes are about 19 in tall by 14 in wide each. So it's definitely a human scale kind of um way to look through a window. It's a traditional window form that's not just a giant blank piece of glass out the street. Um, I think those are the things that I wanted to address specifically, but otherwise I'm happy to take your questions.

Questions for the architect. Go ahead. Um, the tree that the rose bud, is that correct? That's a great question for my landscape architect who selected it and I can ask her for more information about the tree, but I couldn't tell you much more than I could quickly pull up on chat GPT, but I I think it's a nice choice. Okay. And you had a question, Mr. Car?

Uh, yeah. So, um, you mentioned that the style of the house is inspired by two door style. Um, have you tried different renderings? Is that kind of one of the ideas that you have or you have multiple versions of that?

We tried different roof pitches because we wanted to see if we could more closely adhere to all of the recommendations from the zoning code and it's just flat looking. It's just the the reason why these volumes are so appealing is because of is one of the few things, you know, it's such a simple form and to have this exaggerated pitch is um just what makes it a tutor building. It's just one of the very few details that make it a tutor building is that pitch. And is there an attic plant or is it is it just vaulted ceilings? It would be vaulted. Yeah.

And and they're only sort of there's a few of the volumes that are larger. So the common spaces, but then the we reduced the scale for the bedroom wings. So it's a little bit more cozy, lower plate heights, lower lower ridge lines. And and have you thought of any way to mitigate the dust and noise, etc. issues of the north neighbor? Is there any way to do we have any ideas how how to do that?

You know, that's a great question. My colleague and I were discussing that and I think it's something that we need to at least when you know if the project is approved when we retain a contractor that we make it very clear that demolition needs to be you know selectively carried out and that it's done with the utmost care and I know just the building requirement you know building permit requirements demand that you water things in layers as they're being pulled down. So, um, if you know, I guess that's sort of like a building permit question, but we could take it up with the contractor because I think they'd know better about how to do that. Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Lock, go ahead.

Yeah, real quickly. Um, the plans that we're seeing, I heard today on site that the carports moving three feet north. Is that reflected on the plans that we're looking at? Not the ones you're seeing now. Yeah, we'll I think we'll resubmit for a detailed Okay. Yeah. Thanks. And go ahead. And on the I'm looking at the the carport and um visually because you you have it solid towards I don't know what orientation we've got, but one side is solid and then the other is post. Mhm.

And it's such an unusual design that um I can't actually see the house because I'm so busy looking at the carport. So I I I find that an unusual choice. I recognize it as a creative choice. Um and perhaps it also has a structural or or cost choice that was built in there. Um, but it's likely that I would like to see a different design for the K for the carporter. Uhuh. Could you elaborate on what that would mean?

Well, um, and this I'm speaking very very subjectively. You have beautiful symmetry with the two large volumes in the back. Um, actually three, right? Two large and then another that you're pulling forward. And um I I I I could and you also include that symmetry in the roof line, right, of the carport. Um but perhaps simplifying the you know the supporting posts, but this is this is a very subjective comment for me and you're the architect. So okay, please take it with good wishes. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. At this time, I'd like to invite any members of the public that would like to make any comments to the planning commission regarding this application come forward. Anybody any hands up online? No, sir. Okay. Um kind of wonder what happened to Neil Cruz and Carol Hall. They would love this design. Um, okay. I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commission for their comments. Who would like to begin? Go ahead, Commissioner Lock.

Okay. Um, well, I think actually after hearing the um architect speak to the design of this, I'm really intrigued with this concept. I like the um the I mean, it's really clear to me where this came from. That Sunset Centers across the street, up the street. This is just right in that same ballpark except it's much smaller. Um and and it's interesting and um yes, I kind of agree with Commissioner Alurn regarding the um carport that it that it's creative and the curved design and the texture. And I think that that may be what part of it is too is the texture really draws your eye to that. And so maybe, and I know I saw somewhere you're looking at different types of um whether or not you're going to go with a scallop or a straight shingle on it or whatever, that might make a difference on that. Um but I think the theme is carried through the property and I can see where you've got the inspiration. Um I'd like to see the right away not landscaped and just natural. Like I said, I I hate to see us lose parking because that's so critical around here. Um, and um, you know, I feel badly for the neighbors to the north, and I know you're already expressing that that that is a thing that is on your mind. Um, and I understand that the project is a project and um, you know, other than um, that they will definitely have some impacts on from construction and that kind of thing. Um the let's see what was the other Oh, and then the fact that the the um carport will move to the north also I think will help kind of with the how it looks from the street as far as

really the eye-catching bit of it. But um I think in this case the pitched roof is appropriate for this design. Um and um yeah, I'd like to see this move forward. Uh, Commissioner Albert, your comments.

Thank you, Chair. Um, architecturally, I think this is one of the most exciting projects we've seen in a long time. Um, I love that it kind of quotes the Sunset Center. Um, the I love that it's correcting a non-conforming setback. Uh, and um, I will look forward to seeing the the landscape plan uh, with some attention. um you know, the the neighbors next door did speak to the how much they value the tree that appears to be um in need of removal. Uh so uh I hope that that is somehow addressed in the landscape plan for the for the window uh with the transom on the top. Um and again um this is a subjective comment. Uh I know that our guidelines speak to human scale for the windows for and I also know how how important light can be and so that transom will will bring additional light into that room. But again speaking speaking to symmetry in the scale that's seen in the in the other large window on on the other volume I I very subjectively I I think that the overall design might be might be improved um by perhaps making that transom a little smaller separating having a little stucco between the two so it's not one large window volume that that is cutting into that face. um and possibly even putting something smaller in a transom uh for the carport. Yes, I um I would like to see if possible and and and if appropriate some additional options for how that carport could be designed, though I am rather fond of the fact that the roof line sort of quotes

all of the other roof lines. I think that's just terrific. uh and for the right of uh for the right of way um not landscaped. I'm all for additional parking and at the same time if the property owner has the option to landscape I I would I would like them to be able to do that but I'm all for parking. Um but again if the property owner is allowed to landscape and they want to landscape then they should be allowed to landscape. And then finally, the the comments from from the neighbors. I'm extraordinarily sympathetic. I'm grateful that they invited us in to their home to look and better understand their comments and their points of view. And um in a in a perfect world, nothing would change in the property next door. Um, I uh I know that they have a concern for a loss of of um natural views and and light, although I believe that this design has done a very good job of u managing that. And um I think the set book setback and neighborhood compatibility um I actually approve the way that this design has been set up. So, thank you. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Carl Blackoff, your comments. Yeah,

I think that was a unique site visit that doesn't happen so often where the neighbors invite us to their home and show us their favorite sitting places and show us how the new project will impact them in in what ways. Um, and I think it's very important to be sensitive to to this feedback from the neighbors and we always are. Um at the same time obviously we cannot uh you know prevent people from developing their properties and improving uh the houses on these properties. Um I I thought about the different comments we got from the neighbors on the north side. One was about the yellow or the orange netting kind of being visible. In cases like that, we would usually go and say, "Can you reduce the pitch of the roof?" But in this case, it's not going to work because the style of the house calls for a pitched roof. Uh, and I do think that the architect is suggesting something really beautiful and unique. U, maybe requires a little bit more work. I'm not sure if that's the final design. Hopefully, they will improve it a little bit. Um the transim for example, I don't really feel that it fits the kind of the idea of a twodoor house. Maybe that's something that can be um replaced with maybe a a hidden skylight somewhere in the back where we don't see it. Um to get the same amount of light in a different way. Um so and it's also the house is looking if I remember correctly to the east. So if you have a skylight on the south side, you'll get more light basically. Um what I wanted to say is uh the neighbors were also very much in favor of um this uh acacia tree because it's providing uh sun shade uh in the front yard and

that's where they spend quite a bit of time. Um I'm not sure if we can mitigate that in some way. Um that's where the new kitchen is supposed to be. So the tree cannot stay. But maybe there's a way to plant a tree in the same area and maybe a bigger tree that is already somewhat mature so that the shape can you know happens next year or in two years but not in 10. Um to be sensitive to the age of the um two ladies living on the north side. Um, and then in terms of noise, construction noise, they have this nice sitting area that is pretty much next to the fence. And I'm concerned that if they spend quite a bit of time, the way they explained it was if they spend quite a bit of time in this area, um, the nail guns will be in a close proximity on the other side of the fence. Uh maybe we need to have or maybe the planning department can have a conversation with the contractors when they do the initial kind of meeting to figure out if there's any way to mitigate that. Maybe some kind of a temporary fence that is reducing the noise at least the noise. One of the ladies is very sensitive to u rapid changes in the noise and that can trigger a seizure and she had supposedly four or five of this and they're very dangerous. So if we can figure out a way to reduce at least the noise component and maybe the dust component to a certain extent that will that would way uh that would go a long way with these two ladies to basically show that we as a community care about their well-being. Um and um and that is pretty much everything I have to say about that project. Let me just have a look here on the net here.

Did what was your uh thoughts on the window? The size of the window. I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't get get that clear.

You mean the the transim? I think it doesn't work. The size of the window itself, at least on the elevations, they look okay. There a couple of big ones in the back where nobody sees them. Um that I do not see big impact on that. The front of the house is really where the action is, right? Because San Carlos is a very visible, very representative street. Lots of people going to the Sunset Center see this this street in that side of the house. So I think we should be careful with the front of the house. Um the size of the windows in the back is less of a concern. Okay. Um All right. Um my first comments is is just regarding uh addressing what staff the issue staff brought up and they brought up the issue of the pitch of the roof. Uh the reason why the guidelines don't uh they suggest not having uh steep roofs is because they have greater impacts. So typically they and also they can be uh they can create uh problems with your volume study but and so I was looking at the house today when out there to see if it's it's got uh what the impacts are to the neighbors and to from the street because that can create more mass and we're always trying to u encourage you know houses which maintain the the cottage looking the small scale of Carmel and and I think uh what I saw right away was that the house has been brought down and I really think this architect really was sensitive to that and and so the house doesn't really it doesn't really create a lot of mass to the street and um I think it's it's a very it's a very nice design. I mean it's really uh makes a really strong connection to the history of Carmel and I think a lot of a lot of people would really uh respond to this will respond to this uh design you know favorably

and I hadn't thought about the connection to Sunset Center but it's obviously there. Uh so with regarding the size of the the window uh in the uh I assume that's the living room. Um the only problem I mean what what the guidelines speak to is having large plate glass windows and this isn't that this is all this is divided up into I guess the lower ones are are casements and the upper one is our are fixed transom. Um so you know my my looking at it is um you've introduced these really interesting curved elements particularly the carport. I find that really interesting. I like that. I think that's that's a very creative way to approach it. Um, and there there's a there's a there's a hemispherical door and I would suggest that you explore put in a hemispherical transom window on that. And if you look at some of the um the old adobies in over in Monterey, you'll see that they have a they have a on that that large cable, they have a a curved window. So that that is kind of that does make a connection to, you know, our regional architecture. You don't see that too much in Carmel, but but I I was I would just encourage you to to maybe explore that. This is concept and I think that would um pick up on these other curved elements which you've introduced really sensitively and they really they really add to the character of this this design. So, uh that that's my feeling on the window. not not so much the size of it, but I just think that design-wise you could mitigate the impact a little bit and also make it pick up on some of these other elements that you've already introduced. Um, and I had some questions about the the wall. They're proposing a a stuckco wall. It looks like it curves. Is that is that am I correct on that? So, does that extend into the

the uh the front rightway? Because we we we encourage open designs and then they're proposing a stucco solid stucco wall. They are proposing a solid stucco wall. It doesn't go into the city right ofway, but it is in the front setback setback. Right. So, that's one of the details that we still need to work out for final details. They need to bring the height of the wall down to a maximum of 3 ft in the front setback. But you you didn't make bring that up in your report or did I miss it is in there. And um one of the conditions is to work with staff to address. Okay. So, that the middle requirements. So, yeah, I just missed that. I guess I was no problem.

Focusing too much on the other. Part of the wall is a garden wall, meaning it's above grade, and part of the wall is a retaining wall. So, we'll speak more to it at final details. Okay.

All right. Um, yeah, but overall, I I I think uh the architect has done a very presented a very sensive design, and makes a lot of uh connections to our the the historical character of our architecture. And I think um it would really be a nice addition to uh S. Carlo Street. So, we have Oh, we have a draft revol resolution here. Let me if I can find it. I had it here somewhere. Got too many windows open. Here it is. So there weren't let's see what they conditions for concept was the uh tree removal we've talked about that landscape plan drainage plan volume study uh the administration says prior to scheduling final details applicant shall work with uh staff to revise the plan said to either reduce the height of the transom window or omit it entirely. Um, how how do the commissioners feel about that?

Uh, could we give instruction um suggesting a revision and leave that to the architect to work out how they feel it works best with their design? My feeling is it's just I think I think the square design is just creating a little tension which is a little hard to resolve. So, I would just encourage that they explore a hemispherical uh style transom window. Or I think it might it might achieve more of a human scale and also some uh well and it might tie yeah the tie in with what you just and you know so I would I would uh change that direction to uh simply revised

that the um yeah they revised that present some revised designs

which address uh consistent with the design and also with with human scale maintaining that and then the uh side setback back. Going to have to uh revise the plan to for the story proposal, relocate that for the carport. That's goes without saying almost, but and then the submittal requirements prior to rescheduling final details. The applicant shall work with staff to revise the plan set to include uh requisite information necessary for scheduling final details. Okay. And then if at the at final we'll we'll we'll have language in there about the construction management plan, right? Because I think it's you're going to have a challenge there. It's going to be definitely going to be impa impacts on the neighbor from construction. So so whatever you can do but that we'll talk about that final. So, um I'll make a motion that we uh accept the uh concept with the change to the administration that they work with uh present some revised uh design.

Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alboard, yes. Commissioner Carco, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage,

yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to item number eight on the public hearing. This is another design study. This is uh DS25299, the white project. is consideration of a concept design study where it's a demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new 2460 ft two-story residence and a 254 square ft attached garage. Can we have staff report please? This is located on the Scano. Thank you, chair. So, the subject site is located on Biscano 9 southeast of Mountain View. It's a 6,000 foot lot currently developed with a 1,837 ft residence um or I should say um developed with uh that square footage of site improvements. Um, all improvements across the site are proposed to be demolished to accommodate a 2260 ft residence um with an additional 254 ft garage uh totaling 2460 ft. Project also includes a 800 ft attached twotory accessory dwelling unit. Um, in regard to forest character, finding number two states that the project is consistent with the city's design objectives for protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources, and site design. Finding number seven uh states that the development does not require removal of

any significant trees and all buildings are set back a minimum of 6 ft from significant trees. Uh, so the site plan identifies three significant trees on site. There's also one tree identified in the right of way. um which is not there anymore. Uh it has since been removed. Um in terms of impacts of the proposed development, uh the proposed deck is located within 6 ft of the root protection zone of this uh three significant trees located at the rear. Okay.

Um there also is one non-rated tree proposed removal. Um not so much a an impact. The forester didn't even bother to rate it. just kind of a statement of fact. And then the grading and drainage plan shows that there is some cut and fill around uh significant trees. So if you can see here, these are the cut and fill quantities from significant trees. Um there's a statement that says minimize excavation in tree protection zones. There should be none. And then we have some proposed contour lines. Um in respect to enhancement the the tree density is four upper and three lower canopy trees. Uh the applicant has proposed to include two new upper canopy trees and two lower canopy trees. However, all the trees on site are proposed to be located in the rear of the site. And then also there is some uh landscaping proposed um again in the rear corners and then at the front of the property line. However, that landscaping does stop right at that front property line. So, in order to meet finding number two and number seven, staff has included three conditions of approval relating to forest character. Number one, to revise the footprint of the decks at the rear of the residence so that they are wholly outside of the 6ft tree protection zones. Revise the plan so we have at least two new lower canopy trees within the front setback. Um, one of the trees can be located within the ride ofway. Um, three, revise the grading and drainage plan to clearly show that all grading will be outside the root protection zones. And four, to revise the landscaping plan so landscaping continues um within the public right of way. Um, so in respect to privacy and views, finding number five says that the project is consistent with the city's objectives for public and private views and will retain a reasonable amount of

solar access to neighboring sites. So the staff report identified no issues. Um however post uh staff report publication we did receive a neighbor correspondence. Uh concerns regarding the project blocking views from the living room um were their primary contention. Um so over here these were um windows that were identified on a set of plans we had on file. The primary window um is this first one. Uh this in reality is actually a uh a stained glass window that didn't appear to have any uh view out of the window. Um but this is the uh proposed view uh looking at the out of this window. So if you were looking out of this window um this elevation is what you would be seeing um with the roof plan overlaid. Um so looking directly out we would be looking in this vicinity. Um the residential design guidelines suggest uh maintaining view opportunities to natural features that lie outside the property and to maintain views through a property to natural features when feasible. um with some additional considerations and also to avoid placing a tall building wall near property lines when it would be adjacent to similar walls on or near neighboring sites. So, this is all new information. It wasn't discussed in the staff report. Um this was just um included in the presentation to address potential uh neighbor concerns. Um so for your consideration uh you can find that there is no view impact. You could require modification to the project or you can request additional information for further consideration

in respect to mass and bulk and building and roof form. Finding number three um states that the project avoids complexity using simple building forms, a simple roof plan and a restrained employment of offsets and appendages that are consistent with the neighborhood character. And then finally number four is that the project is adapted to human scale and the height of its roof plate lines eaves building forms and size of windows, doors and entryways. So from a zoning perspective, the project meets the applicable zoning standards related to mass and bulk. Um the volume study is required prior to final details review. Um and these requirements have been included in uh concept finding um or conditions of approval number five and number six. So successful completion of a volume study could support a finding for project that the project is consistent with mass and bulk. However, from a discretionary perspective, you still have the authority to um review the project for consistency with the design guidelines. Just because the project meets the zoning standards does not necessarily mean that it meets the findings for um mass and bulk or these um concept findings. So, some design guidelines you may want to consider um in looking at consistency with those design objectives and the concept findings are um that the building should relate to human scale and its basic forms, the use of simple roof forms um such as um not using flat roofs on smaller or larger buildings and that they should only be used on smaller one-story structures. Um and then this is um one where the project you know is consistent. The roof should be proportionate to the scale of the building. Um it is within that preferred roof pitch. Um but again you then you have that inconsistency with

the the flat roof. Um so finding number one is that the project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site. So staff did identify an inconsistency in the size of the parking space. So a standard parking space is required to be 10x 20 um ft. So at least 10 ft wide and 20 ft deep as identified in the plans. The parking space is less than these dimensions. Um so here's a standard uh detach garage as a illustrative example. We have an exterior width of 20 ft or sorry depth of uh here it's actually 20t 2 in and then 10 ft wide. Uh the plans show here that it's um only 19 ft and an actual um interior dimension of of only 18 ft 7 in. So staff has included a requirement that the plans be revised so that the garage has a a functional dimension of uh 20 feet. Um that's condition of approval number seven. And then finding number six is that the design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies related to residential design in the general plan. And then as conditioned, the the project would meet this finding. And with that, staff recommends that the planning commission uh consider the project and make findings for approval to adopt um the resolution as described on the screen. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Questions from staff. Um I have one question. So I I was looking at the ADU. Um, how do this 800 square ft qualify as an ADU if they the only access is a patio door in the back? Is if if I see that correctly.

Um, so the ADU shouldn't be considered um as part of this hearing. Um, the ADU has not been approved yet. So, we're we're only looking at the single family dwelling. The ADU, just generally speaking, all ADUs require um its own separate independent access and then from a building code perspective, they do require a a swinging door and that will be addressed at at the building permit stage. So, we should assume that this ADU will get like a entry door somewhere in addition to the patio door in the back.

Mhm. It will be required to have the building code requires a swinging door or I think the building code refers to it as a hinge door. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Go ahead. Thank you, chair. Um, Mr. Court, for the parking space nonconformity, I mean, is the is the design due to some site size restriction that it's smaller than I see. No. So, it's easy enough. It it should be to accommodate the correct size.

Correct. I mean, the the site is being completely scraped, so it's it's there's no size constraint. It's it's just going to take some walls being moved around to accommodate the correct conforming garage size. Great. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Uh like to invite the uh designer to come forward, make their presentation at this time. Hello, my name is Alan Leman. Um, I'm the uh designer on the project. Uh, thank you uh planning commission and and staff for all the work you've done on this. Um, uh, this is kind of a unique project. I uh the clients brought it to me um in almost a complete form and I uh have helped them along the way to modify to ensure that we can meet the zoning standards and and Carmel's guidelines for um setbacks volume things like that. Um uh one of the uh things we're trying to do with this this project is to uh bring in uh sculptural elements and massing that is uh kind of a lot in keeping with much of the street that that it's on. There's a lot of twotory projects on this on this street that are um heavily street facing. Um, we didn't want to go to the extent that the ADU up the street does um uh on on Viscano, but we um wanted to uh the clients very interested in the the Scandinavian aesthetic um that's here, which is a lot of uh simple roof forms, simple volumes, and uh very clean lines in in as uh Evan had mentioned, you know, in keeping with those areas of the uh the the Carmel uh tradition standards. Um so uh the other thing we've uh focused on a lot is the fenestration

um in order to use the windows when we have these large um uh very uh uh non-interrupted walls but use the window uh fenestration patterns as a part of that aesthetic in order to break those um uh forms up and not leave a a large uh blank facade anywhere on the on on the building. Um, even with the the twostory building, we've uh created the volumes that give it a more horizontal uh linear feel um rather than uh appearing to be out of scale and out of human scale um from uh from both the street and and the the uh uh sideyard elevations uh facing the neighbors. Um, one of the things the design does is bring the garage outside of the front yard setback. So, keeping an attached garage, the neighbor directly to the north where the the garage is on the north side. Um, they have a detached garage which is out in the front yard setback. So, we're helping to create the variety of the streetscape um uh by positioning the the garage back into the um and attaching it to the house. The several things that were uh brought up in the staff report that I'd like to uh bring uh comment to is we we do have only that one minor minor tree being removed. The the trees as proposed um all in the rear yard setback or the rear yard area. Um we're happy to make adjustments um for finals to work with that landscape plan to bring some of those to towards the street. One of the reasons we didn't do that is the power lines running along the street. If we were to plant upper canopy trees, even

the lower canopy trees, those power lines are very close to grade. And we didn't want to further exasperate the problems that we have in Carmel with with power lines and trees intersecting each other. So that was one of the reasons we had originally um set those trees um towards the back. Of course, I'm very hopeful that coming soon there will be a complete undergrounding of power lines, but I think that's pretty far off. Um uh there's uh a minor revision to the drainage plan requested. Um we did not actually place the the uh uh drainage drywall pit zones in the tree protection uh zones at all. But I understand, you know, there is a slight bit of grading proposed there. We were going to, you know, avoid the uh the proximity of the trees. Um the the other item regarding the decks and their proximity to the tree protection zones um we have no intention of doing excavation in those zones. Um our uh supporting system for the decks can can lever towards those zones. Um all throughout Carmel we see a prepoundonderance of decks that completely surround trees. Trees going up through seconds story decks. those d those trees are thriving. There's nothing wrong with those trees. For us to canolver a deck near a tree, I don't see that as a problem. But we're happy to work with the forester and and get comments and make sure that we are doing everything to protect those trees. Those are some beautiful trees in a backyard and we we definitely want to maintain those. Um we did reach out to uh the majority of

well as many of the neighbors as we could contact. Um there was contact with them. the one uh so and that's I mean I think that shows in the letters of support that we did receive early on in in the uh uh planning submission project there several the neighbors who made very positive comments are very excited about this project um uh and upcoming and and unfortunately Mr. love who is the neighbor to the north. we were not able to contact um uh the tenant that lives there um you know was so nice to to let us in and I think we we got to see clearly what what the views were and one of the things we were sensitive to was that uh living that large window in the living room so that we did not create a window to window connection and we have offset the window um uh the windows in the ADU to make sure we did not, you know, have this this eye to eye contact between neighbors. We are also on that north side set back to five over five feet. So we are uh for our small caramel lots 5 ft's massive um uh so we are you know trying to do what we can to um accommodate neighbors on all on all sides. Um the uh uh we had done have already I've already gone through a volume calculation on the house. I wouldn't have taken a house um a project this far through the process without doing constant volume studies. And so we uh believe that the uh volume um consultant will will find the same uh the same results there. um the garage square footage issue. It's a drafting uh anomaly with that 19 uh foot

dimension because you can see there's also a dimension on the interior um that I show that uh hatched rectangle that is 20 ft. Now there there is a question that I think you know that uh Evan brought up that's valid. Um we are measuring to the outside of walls which is very much our standard and there is a thickened wall um at the rear of the garage which is a plumbing wall. So, we're happy to modify that dimension uh location to accommodate um a uh uh you know, a 2x6 or even a 2x4 wall and make our minor adjustments that we need to um throughout the um you know, elsewhere in the house to pick up those you know, one or two square feet um that we're talking about. So we uh that's a pretty minor minor issue that we will correct for uh before finals. Um the landscaping um in that front yard area um again at the at the public rightway um we are on Viscano and Visc and this house is not that far from the forest theater. Um the overflow or not overflow but the the regular parking for the forest theater spills out through this neighborhood um pretty uh consistently. So we did not want to put too much landscaping in an area that we know will have tire treads in it um before long. So, we were kind of being mindful of our parking needs um and the forest theater um and uh and not wanting to, you know, get upset that somebody's, you know, run over uh a jade bush or or something like that that that this this

is this is an additional need. Yes, we need the the uh beauty of the streetscape, but we need a place for the forest theaters parking to overflow to as well. And so we wanted to make sure that we were kind of trying to strike a balance between the two. Um uh and that's that's all I have to say for now. There any questions for me? Uh questions for Alan? We have a question. Uh thank you, chair. Um, do you pronounce your name? Layman. Layman. Leman. Leman. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Layman. Oh, thanks for asking.

Um, I'm looking at uh the street elevation that you've got on on sheet A1, and I just want to comment um uh what I think is uh just a terrifically nice job you've done of stepping the house um down the hill um and really improving, I think, as a at a neighborhood level how that's going to fit in. Um, very very nice. Um, the glass, is it ordinary clear glass or is it um tinted glass in your windows? Oh, ordinary clear glass. Yeah. Yeah. The It appears Yes. The rendering

physically based rendering um uh has tweaked the color so much. I I wish that was easier to adjust. I should have run that through through uh an AI.

Yes. Perfect. Um, and my my last question um has to do with the uh as I'm looking at the the front elevation of of your design. So that the volume that's on the farthest to the right um that has um it's the tallest volume with um a a long flat vertical plane. Uh and uh that that that volume to me seems a little out of character for Carmel. just that tall flat vertical volume. Um, I'll just leave that as a as a comment. I'm not an architect, so I I can't suggest a way to redesign it. Um, but that's something that I I continue to look at that and and some of the sizes of the windows, but I'm sure my fellow commissioners will talk to that, too. So, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, any more questions for uh Sure. Um, the fence the you've got some fence sample on your plans. Where is the fencing going to go? Is it around like down the neighbors and um yeah uh uh the the three sides? Okay. Um that we we would continue the fence along there and height. Oh uh maximum 6 foot um uh wherever uh uh applicable. And then um when we get to the front yard area um for a small section then we would drop to four. Okay, thank you.

I have a I have a question. Um, we're trying uh in in separate discussion, we're trying to figure out if people will be renting out this ADUs for uh meeting our housing uh mandates from the state. Do you know what the owners are planning to do with the ADU? Are they planning to rent it or use it as maybe a family member will use it or what's what's um well it's actually a multigenerational family. Okay.

Um and so a lot of the intention is uh presently because of course we don't know I mean houses change change ownership. They they the owners appear uh in all sincerity um to be uh that this house will be with their family a long long time. Um and uh at this at at the present time um they have a a multigenerational ownership of the house and so this would be um used in that way I believe.

Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Alan, what what on the hardscape plan in the front yard uh just inside of the property line? What are those those kind of uh round stones? Those are st they Yeah, that we would do like a very low, you know, almost grade level uh stone stone border. All right. I was just trying to figure what that was. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. All right. Um I uh at this time I'd like to invite any members of the public that'd like to uh come make any comments regarding this application.

Thank you. Oh, Gail. Nice to see you, Gail.

Nice to see you, too, and everyone else, even those I don't know. Um, so I I I assume that I had sent a long letter, excuse me, to um Evan uh in December and I understanding is that it was part of the packet. Um, so it it is and so you've all seen it. So I'm not going to repeat all that again. Um, I just, you know, I came up here um to support the neighbors because I think what they're doing is is fabulous. I'm just really thrilled with it. And um you know um I heard one of the comments that this isn't Carmel if it's a if it's tall or a flat roof. But you know, Carmemell is many many styles and you know that I worry about this kind of fear of modernism. And you know um I like to remind people that we were founded by a bunch of people that really wanted to get away from tradition and that's really what the essence of Carmel was. So, um, at any rate, that's that, you know, I think it's great. It's a great addition to the street, and I love the street. So, thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anyone else in the chamber like to make a comment?

Good afternoon, commissioners, staff. My name is Brendan Connelly, Wayfinder Development. I have been um engaged by Miss White uh to um be part of her team during pre-construction. Um that's uh led led me to the process of canvasing the the community um walking door to door with the front elevation of the house and talking to the neighbors. Um that was that that brought me into people's living rooms and people's gardens and it was a really first time I've done anything like that. Really unique experience. Um, I know you received a few emails and a letter in support of the project as a result of that effort. I I know you've also heard from other people that they maybe didn't support it, but I think that's like three or four letters that you got or emails you got to to one person who had concerns. Um, I met with over 20 people. Um, so hearing from those few people that had strong feelings, I think you can assume that the other people who I sat with or met with um didn't have strong feelings, strong enough feelings to to write you. And in a way that's some kind of support actually to not show up here and and have to say something for or against. Um, and I I I I wanted to share my my personal experience that there was a lot of a lot of people were kind of encouraged or or or either outright liked the design or um or just were supportive in general as as her neighbor just sitated of uh of of something new and interesting coming into the neighborhood. So anyway, that's that's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anyone else in the chamber that wanted to make any comments regarding this application? Any hands up online, Shelby? Uh, yes, we have Freda Dicki. Okay. Uh, Miss Dicki, would you like to unmute yourself and make your comments? Thank you so much. Um, we live um our family owns the house at 7 Southwest Krispy, which is directly behind this house. And so, we do have a couple questions just so we understand. Maybe we are not aware. Um, first of all, I think one of the questions was answered that a family member will be living in the attached dwelling unit. Is that what I heard?

I think that's what was indicated, but it's not required. Okay. Um, the other thing I think also by looking at the plans, I was interested in how far uh the home is from the back property line, but I think looking at it, it does probably meet the criteria. Am I correct on that? Yes, I don't think there's any issues with the rear setback.

Okay. Um, on the plans I was also looking at and and this may be an old plan. It was attached to the attachments that were online. There is a guest house and two sheds that I'm seeing on here. Um, those are right up against uh the property line. And I'm I'm wondering if this is an old plan that was out online that maybe I'm mistaken, but um I just wanted to ask about that if there were any outuildings um besides the main uh facility, main home. You want to address that?

Sure. The the existing sheds you're seeing, those are on the existing site plan. Those structures are proposed to be demolished. Um Okay. Okay. So, including the guest house, all all existing detached structures are proposed to be removed. Um they'll there'll be one um large structure on site um that includes a uh attached accessory dwelling unit and garage. So, one one singular structure.

So, one singular structure and it's that that that um a um ADU is actually attached to the home. Is that what I'm understanding? All all it'll be a a single family dwelling, an attached accessory dwelling unit, and an attached garage with no detached structures.

Okay. So, it's all one it's all all part of the one unit is what you getting at. Okay. I think those were uh the questions. Um a bit concerned about a twostory because we do have a little bungalow there and we have a garden back there. We spent a lot of time on the outside. So, a little concerned about that, but I I think from what I'm hearing after listening that that that may be um may be satisfied and I think the family will be fine with that. So, um I have no further questions.

Thank you. I don't see any other hands up there. So, I'm going to unless uh was there any final comments you had, Alan? I think Go ahead. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh sorry, I forgot to mention uh one of the items that um uh was brought up in the staff report was regarding the flat roof on the second story. Um we have a very minor kind of uh roofing transition zone um that makes a a flat roof section um at the uh uh towards uh towards the the street elevation. um you'll you'll see that horizontal line which is kind of reflective of the the roof um the entry roof uh uh line. And so we're we're kind of you know just doing a a a repetition of that line. But also we have these two gable forms and rather than spilling water uh directly against each other, we need really needed to um create a small, you know, flat area that's acting as a cricut. Um but also by doing that and not making the gables more massive um we are keeping the scale down and so that was a part of the the design aesthetic we were after.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commissioner. Taylor Page, do you mind if I just check on one thing? Um I see the neighbor to the north is online. I'm just not sure if he wanted to comment. Oh, they're they're they're online. Yeah. U Mr. Love, um if you wanted to comment, uh you can raise your hand if you just wanted to to watch. Um you're more than welcome to not raise your hand and we'll move on.

He's got his hand up. Okay, Mr. Love, would you like to uh make some comments? You can unmute yourself. You're unmuted, Mr. Love. Can you uh got your microphone turned on on your I guess are you able to hear me? Yes. Now we can hear you.

Okay. U Yeah. Thanks for giving me this uh opportunity and and certainly we want to be uh good neighbors uh and uh always realize that if we submit or offer comments that uh may be perceived as being negative or not in support of the of the uh project that can risk uh or put a uh a potentially nice relationship at risk and we want to be good neighbors. But I stand by the comments that I've submitted from from our perspective and I realize it's very subjective. The property as it's proposed I I just don't think adds anything in a positive way to the architecture of the street. I think it's it's too massive and and to me it looks like any kind of contemporary building that I could find in Sandy Utah in a new development or subdivision where I spend a lot of my time. it just does not capture to me the essence of Carmel. So that's what I said in my uh in my written comments and and I that's the way I feel and that's the way my my siblings who also own the property along with me they feel the same way as well. Thanks for your time.

Mr. Love, do you have any comments about the u the view from your your living room? I was not I was not um I have not been there since the uh since the the orange uh indicator tape has gone up. So I'm relying on what relatives um uh and other family members have that have been there have said to me. That's one reason why um I work with a tenant to make sure she could open up the property for a site visit today so that you folks can help make your own conclusions as to how much our view has been compromised. But what I've been told by family members that have visited, it's going to be severely compromised from that uh from that living room window.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you.

Okay, I think that takes care of everybody. So, I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to commission. Um, Commissioner Carropov, would you like to begin? Where to begin? Um, so it it is a a massive house. Um, the square footage is maximized. So this is basically probably the the maximum square footage you can get out of this lot because at 6,000 square ft I guess the maximum is around 24 2500 um based on the formula and then you add 800 square ft ADU uh and the garage. So I I think that the purpose of the whole project is to maximize the the usage of the lot and get as many square feet as possible um as many bedroom as possible and bathrooms as possible. Um that creates a lot of mass on the property and I understand the neighbor Christopher Love talking about the the size of the building. Um I always would encourage people to not go to the maximum. We have maximums for a reason but it doesn't mean that you go to an architect and say can you build me a house that is absolutely like the maximum square foot that I can get of this place because then we end up with bulk and mouse and then we have problems with neighbors etc. Um on the ADU I express my question I asked my question about the separate door and how the access is going to be. So that this is probably going to be figured out. What I don't understand is the balcony of the ADU seemed to be right in front of the

house on the upper side. I think that's the north side. Um it wasn't clear when we on site exactly how that's going to work with the balcony. I now think I understand. Um, so what is the size of the balcony? Uh, is it is it designed for like a party or for a table? I I think it's a it's a midsize balcony. My concern is really, you know, when you rent or when you give the ADU to be used by a family member, let's say they use this balcony extensively, the neighbor on the other side will get uh upset about noise and uh people and then privacy basically. So that that's a problem I I would like to address uh early in the process. Um, yeah. And, uh, I'm sure Stephanie will go check the the water credits. I think the old house had like three and a half bathrooms. This one has like a five and a half. Um, so water credits are coming from somewhere. I'm not sure exactly from where. Um, the size of the doors in the windows, they're pretty high. They have also transims in the back. I'm usually not very sensitive to the height of the windows in the back because they are not visible. Um, in general, um, we're trying to limit the size of the windows to a human scale. Um, I'm not sure that the windows are human scale at this point. They look fairly big. Um, cannot comment on the design. U I think it looks modern. It looks uh contemporary. Um the houses on the left and on the right are more traditional. Like the the one on the left side is

kind of a storybook house. The one on the right is a a very small kind of a bungalow house as far as I can see here on the drawing. Um so I'm not sure how this big massive house is going to fit the neighborhood. Um, I have no problems with the materials. Um, flat roofs, again, we try to discourage flat roofs, but when you build a massive house, the architects end up with putting a flat roof component somewhere because there's no other way to connect these different roof pitches and slopes. Um, I understand that. Um, yeah, these are my comments. I think I I would I would prefer a smaller house with a lower square footage, but I guess we cannot tell the the owner what to do. Um very concerned about people adding ADUs in general and adding another 800 square ft to the main house without any guarantee that this ADU will be um rented out or used for the benefit of the community. Um that's another concern and we have discussed that last week when we did the review of the housing element. in the city council, right? Uh we currently have, my understanding is virtually no uh affordable housing in town based on the latest formula. So, and ADUs are counted as affordable housing, but we don't seem to have a way to use them as affordable housing. So, that's concerning. Um so, this is a concept, right? We can say whatever we want. Um I I would prefer if the house can be made smaller and less intrusive. Um play heights can be reduced, the height of the windows and doors can be reduced. Um

the square footage can be reduced. Um to leave more space in the lot. Right now it's really maximized. It goes from fence to fence pretty much. Um, yeah, it's it's the it's the opposite of u the other project that we discussed today, the seven the 900 foot house that got 27 square ft addition and we were trying to figure out if that's okay with us with the nonconformity. Um, but I think that's what happens is that's that's my my primary concern is that if we don't allow people to do a small improvement of their property and add 27 square ft because of something, then they just there's no other way. You have to demolish the entire house. And when you demolish that house, it's a different algorithm that kicks in. You talk to the architects, you talk to the builders, and they tell you this is a once in a-lifetime opportunity to get your maximum square footage of this lot. And the best way to do it is go the maximum that is allowed and not an 800 square foot ADU. And that's how we end up with this massive houses that nobody in Carmel likes. I talked to members of the community. They are very upset about that that the houses start looking like town homes. They are close to the property line. They're big. You get five of these next to each other, it looks like a town home. No, not not as a stand standalone single family home. And um we have no space for trees when you build build massive massive houses. So we lose our village character. So there are a lot of consequences. Uh so my take away from this is again I'm not planning to block this project. I would like to see a redesign that is more modest. Um, but the general call to action here is to make space for modest remodels where people

don't need to go second story and 3,000 square ft. Um, so that we can keep the character of the community otherwise we will lose it. We're heading in that direction as you know. So I hope we're not too far down that path. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Uh, Commissioner Lock, your comments. trailer page, do you mind if I just make a quick comment? Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

I I just want to um for for the sake of the commission and and the benefit of the public, I just want to remind the the commission that the the scope of the project is a single family dwelling and not the ADU. The ADU is is not being approved or necessarily considered by the commission, but at the same time, it it hasn't been approved. So if in your decision-m or your consideration deliberation um there is an aspect of the project that would impact the ADU that that is certainly fine to comment on. Um just because an ADU is proposed as part of a project does not mean the project cannot change. So, um, when you submit an application, um, the state law says that we may delay acting upon a permit application for the ADU until a permit application for a primary dwelling has been approved. So, just because the permit application for the ADU is on the plans, again, we can delay acting on the ADU. So, um, I'll I'll think of just a hypothetical example. Say you want the building to shift 3 feet to the south and that requires the ADU to also shift 3T to the south. That doesn't impact the applicant's ability to construct an ADU as proposed, but it might change that location. B if if you have a finding to support that 3-foot shift.

Well, as I understand it, we're not considering the ADU. Exactly. Exactly. So So any direction we give on this has nothing to do with the ADU. Exactly. So this is not in the equation. So our our our our focus is primarily on the residence. Correct. And the the uh design aspects of the residents at this point. Okay. Correct. Thank you for that clarification. Y Okay. Commissioner Lock. Actually, I'd like to pass my comment. Commissioner Al back to me. Thank you, Chair. You have the baton.

Thank you, Commissioner Lock. Thank you, Mr. Court. Um, couple of notes. Um, and I'll I'll repeat um how pleased I am with the variety that this design appears to bring to the neighborhood. That is a part of our design guidelines. Um, my first comment, I do need a little help with the what to me is an appearance of mass on that that front elevation. Uh and it could simply be that there is an absence of any uh there any trees. Um but there is I do need some help with that. Um as we look at the front elevation that far right um you know a a beautiful tree would mitigate that. Um staggering that we do talk about staggered volumes. Excuse me. staggering that upper uh level, that upper story slightly back from the front plane um could also reduce that appearance of mass to me. Um the windows in general uh especially I'm usually most concerned about what's visible from the public right ofway. They do appear to be larger than what we ordinarily would consider human scale. On sheet A7, I'm looking at the windows um to the rear and the rear of the the design of the rear of the property is absolutely beautiful. Uh those windows are stunning and enormous. And I do have a question and Mr. record. I don't know if you have this information yet, but that's that's a a lot of glass looking out at a rear neighbor. So, I'm presuming because no one made

any comments that that that is not going to be an issue. U my third comment has to do with the flat roof on the second story. I know that we discourage those. I think with this particular architecture, it looks perfectly appropriate. Uh landscaping in that that right of way, that's a very generous compromise uh for the property owner and the designers to recognize that the property is in the neighborhood of the forest theater and that parking is likely going to occur somewhere in that right of way, whether they landscape to accommodate that or not. I did have a question about the condition of uh of approval number one that has to do with the deck. Um you know it talks about the footprint of the deck and my my question is when you use that term footprint does that mean the the the footings. I don't exactly know the definition of that term footprint. Um the architect uh raised the the point you know if they could cantalver that deck. You know my ultimate question is if the architect can design the deck so that the footings are not piercing that 6ft roof area then can the size of the deck remain the same. I think that's important direction for the architect. And then my last comment has to do with what's on the top of the garage. Uh nice flat roof on the top of that garage. Is is there a plan to turn that into a deck because that might impact some of the um the privacy of the

neighbor. And that ends my comments. And thank you. You can wait. I I'll make my comments if you want. Sure. Okay. I mean, I don't have to ask.

I actually No, I'm happy to make my comments at this point. Um and and my comments are different than your comments. I'm sorry, but um I I really like this design and um I think it is new. It's refreshing. It's interesting. Um it the the concerns that I've heard expressed by my fellow commissioners here don't bother me at all. I think that the um everything in that front elevation um fits together. Um I think that the flat roofs are appropriate in this case because it it does break things up a little bit. Um the uh the windows do have um you know they are broken up. They're not solid glass windows. Um and and and I think that the the upstairs deck with the non we're not looking at ADU. um is interesting and and I like how that you kind of have the deck kind of hidden back in um this interesting area. Um so I actually I have no concerns with any of this stuff. I think that the um that the concept of having moved windows so that you're not staring from the neighbor's window in um there will be a fence there somewhere that um and I honestly can't remember if there was a fence on site today. Um yeah and and so um I'm fine with this project and I'd move it forward.

Okay. My my focus is um has to do with the uh the twotory out there on the street and and what basically the guidelines uh address this and you have a continuous wall plane there with no breaks in it. And when I walked up to it just from the flagging I mean it's it's a big mass sticking straight up two stories and um looking at the design it's there's really nothing there that that breaks up the line at all. So, uh I I don't think it's consistent with mass and bulk uh criteria or you know for the residential guidelines. And the other issue that I have with it is that it seems to me there is a uh what I would consider a significant impact to the views of the neighbor to the north from their from the uh the living room. I mean the uh the ridge the uh the sinking flagging there um it just goes right across that that window there. And um so I think those two issues need to be addressed before I could recommend um you know accepting this this this concept. I'm I'm a little uh the the view that that is always a little bit um subjective and I understand that and and and that's kind of secondary to my although that may be you know to an owner of another property they're not going to think it's secondary but but I just want to want to speak to it here. But what I'm more concerned about though is this this this continuous plane of of material with no interruptions that's presented right to the street. And I think um with some change in the design or maybe some way you deal with the trim or whatever. You know, I'm not the designer. I don't I'm not I'm not u you

know, I don't have a problem with the design or how it's put together. A lot of the stuff you're doing, I think it's well thought out. I just think you've got this big vertical mass of material that's going up two stories right out on the front of the property. And you know, that's something that we we we deal with in uh projects all the time. We're trying to, you know, mitigate mass and bulk from the street. So being a talent designer, which I know you are, I know you can do come up with some alternatives. So that's what I would the direction I would like to give.

Chair, what about the the windows and this? How do you feel about the um I mean I agree it's it's a beautiful design and we have the guidelines to follow. H how do you feel about the windows in that that front plane?

Well I mean I I the windows are very integrated into the design and I appreciate that. I mean, you know, they um to be honest with you, the windows that I have a just from my own personal thing that I have a little more problem with is that connection between the two gables. There's these kind of small windows in there and and I just I see there just creates a little tension there in my mind. I don't really have a problem with the windows. They're in the gables because they really uh uh kind of uh mimic, you know, the pattern. you know, it's it's you know, it's a contemporary design. It's taking simple forms, like you said, a Scandinavian aesthetic, simple forms. The windows uh are are reflections or, you know, iterations of the form and and I think that works. You know, I I don't have a problem with that. I you know you know and I'm not going to I don't want to nitpick the design but I do I just think that those smaller windows and the connecting there there's there I think there's an opportunity there for a designer to make a connection across the whole front so that you know but that's that's a kind of a subjective thing and we're not designing this so my my uh I feel like under you know my authority the thing that I need to point out is that we've got a large vertical mass of unrep unre uninterrupted material and the guidelines speak directly against you know to that. So, uh, that's what I would like to see addressed. And I do, but I do secondarily think that there is there could be a significant view impact to the neighbor, uh, to the, um, north. And I would just encourage the designer to because this kind of came up late and I think, uh, Allan said that he didn't have an opportunity to talk to them because he's not a not, you know, he doesn't live there. So I would uh just uh encourage to have little some more

communication. This is concept so there's time to do that. And I think you know normally that's how we handle these situations. We just encourage the designer to have a little more you know discussions with them. And to be honest while I was there you know the shade didn't work real well. So I can't I can't but it just seemed to me that there was a potential for a significant impact there and I just think you know at concept we need to bring it up. So I would just encourage, you know, Allan to have some more conversations with that, with Mr. Love about that, look at a little closer. But but the thing that I have more problem with is this unrupt interrupted vertical mass of material. And I that's come up in the discussion. You know, there's I don't have a problem with the design. It's it's nice coherent design. A lot of thought given to it. Uh, I just think that we need to you need to mitigate that that mass that's being presented to the street. So, that's those are my comments. If if the commissioners agree and they want to put it into uh, you know, the resolution to give direction, I'm I'm I'm not going to make the motion on this one. So,

chair, I do agree with you about the uh the mass and that that vertical plane, but I don't know how my other and it sounds like Commissioner Lock is okay. Well, I think I think Commissioner Kerkov brought up that concern, didn't you? Which one? The mass the mass of the twotory to the street. Uh, yes. Yeah. I mean, I that was your concern. I mean, you were concerned about the mass of the whole building on on the site. Yeah.

So, but I mean my feeling is if it's within the standards, it's within the standards. We don't, you know, I mean, you know, that that is that's a legal right. They can build to the standards and that's fine. Our our concern is is is you know more to the u how it presents itself to the street, how the design impacts the you know the the uh the character of the community if it if it meets the uh you know the definitions of of mitigating mass and bulk. And so that's that's how I look at it.

All right, I'll attempt a motion. Um okay so this is concept design. So, um that we move forward with the concept design study uh DS 25299 white and um incorporate the comments that were made um by the commissioners particularly regarding the um the what do you mass of the the front to the south and um direction to work with the neighbor to the north um to see if there's a way to help reduce the impact to their living room window view. Um and then um I think those were the main concerns that we had. So

and and do we need clarification? Again, this could be my noviceness. Um, related to the deck and the footings was one of the conditions of approval. Yeah, I'm trying to a little bit I got to get that up here. It says let that let me just read through what what staff's got here. Okay, so we've got conditions for concept exceptions for staff. Um number one it's number one the

number um scheduling final details applicant shall submit revised plan for review by the planning division city forester locates and maintains footprint of the decks in the rear wholly outside the 6oot uh tree protection. Um it's you know you're you're concerned about the foundations is that staff that's that that's concerned about I mean the designer said it's very easy to can lever and I agree. Yeah. I would so can Right. So can he uh but I but I I'm not looking at the plan how the how the framing plan on the deck is.

It's the general impacts to the trees. Um you know we we don't have any detail in the plan. it it shows canal levered if that's it the there were findings for the condition within the staff report that point to a number of general plan policies design guidelines and um okay so provision well it you you could say that if it's canoli that's fine at this point I don't think we have enough information well I agree I agree I I don't have enough information so they'd have to come back so so he's he's gonna have to come back with in the final with some um framing.

Yeah. My my concern just more generally is at at which point does it become an impact if we allow canal levered features at at every position. You know, if this is a tree where you you know it becomes to maintain a clearance between Yeah. the deck even if it is can levered. Is there a guideline a a standard for that? Six feet. Six feet. Okay. Well, then then I think we need to leave that. All right. Then yeah, the with the proposed then that's the ends and conditions.

Okay. Okay. And then uh condition number two is um submit a revised landscape plan uh that meets some middle requirements for track two which would be at least two lower canopy trees located in the front setback and one one of two lower canopy trees may be located in the rightway. I don't I don't really see any problem with that. No, I I think we I would say accept the proposed conditions just as they are stated except um

you're adding the condition that the applicant uh revise the the vertical mass of uninterrupted material on the uh what that's the uh is that the west elevation? Yes. Twotory west elevation. Yes. Is that correct? Yes. Is that what you're That's it. And and they include the garage condition of acceptance seven. Yeah. Is that And it sounds like that was you know the designer said that wasn't really a problem. Yeah. So with I would second that motion if staff was able to record that motion. I I did also hear a comment about working with the neighbor to the north.

Yeah. Contact admit work with the neighbor to uh mitigate concerns, view concerns. Okay. So, we have a second from Commissioner Albert. Yes, sir. Okay. Any more discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alboard. Yes. Commissioner Carov. Commissioner Lock. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you.

Okay, that got us through the public hearings and now we have the director's report. Okay, I will make this quick because the sun is going down and hopefully we can all take a walk after this. So, um, a couple of announcements. We had our second community meeting for the objective um, development and design standards yesterday. Um, we will hopefully be receiving additional public comment before the administrative draft goes out. I believe um our staff will be working on um sending out an email just giving everybody a reminder letting them know, give us your comments. Um we are continuing our work on the design traditions and talking targeting local adoption in the fall. So we'll be bringing that back to the planning commission. I believe the the plan is to to do it in series. Um so you will be seeing a lot of Brandon Um, tomorrow the Forest and Beach Commission has a presentation on beach maintenance and sand re redistribution. Um, and I believe it's a focus on what was done in the past. That might be interesting if um, anybody is curious. There's also an update um, on the work that is being done to uh, to the draft forest management plan. Um and that includes like where in the SQA process or what they're anticipating the SECO document would be as well as next steps. Um there were two appeals filed on the planning commission's decision on um ADAW Shucks use permit and the determination of abandonment. So that will be going before the city council. And then last but not least, um there is an a mock evacuation drill that is planned for May

30th. Um so I would encourage you to kind of keep your eyes on the lookout for flyers and participate if if you're available. Good luck. And the city council decided that the Verizon is coming back to us. So they basically supported our decision, right? The appeal was denied and the permit was denied. It was. Yes. Okay. And Director Janette, could would you would it be possible to request a link to the objective design and development standards? Is was there a presentation available or a report or a

I would be grateful. I'm sorry I couldn't make the meeting um because the first one was excellent. So really looking forward to seeing the progress. This one um had kind of like an exercise to it where you could put dots on things that you know you felt were important. Um but it was recorded and um the the posters and I believe also some of the handouts or will also be available so we can definitely send that out. Did did you say the Oshucks was appeal was on the last council? It will be going before council targeting April. It's going to be April 4th. Is that is that the

special meetings the Monday meeting? But it was it wasn't on that it wasn't on that agenda. Okay. It was not um we still have to notice and all that. Great. Any more questions for the director? Next meeting is April 8th and we are a journ and it's still daylight outside. Oh man.

Pardon? It's a good job. Yeah, we got through it pretty pretty uh