| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.88 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. Okay, guys, we're ready. Hold on. |
| 00:00:14.21 | Kristina Feller | I'm here. |
| 00:00:16.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.86 | Kristina Feller | She'll follow me on that. |
| 00:00:17.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:19.40 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you very much, Maria and everybody welcome this evening. Thank you for attending our regular planning commission hearing. for Wednesday, January 26th. Heidi, could you please call the roll call? |
| 00:00:35.20 | Heidi | Good evening Chair Feller and members of the Planning Commission. Before I read the rule call, I'm just going to provide a brief introductory statement. because we are holding this meeting virtually. So pursuant to government code section 54953, subsection E, and in light of the declared state of an emergency, this planning commission meeting on January 26, 2022, is being conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website. With that, I'll go right into the roll call. Thank you. Commissioner Saad. HERE. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:08.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of |
| 00:01:09.71 | Heidi | Commissioner Junius. It wasn't. Vice Chair Gress. Sure. Chair Feller. Thank you. |
| 00:01:14.69 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:01:16.68 | Heidi | All members are present and we have a quorum. |
| 00:01:18.85 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. Thank you so much. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda this evening. So I just wanna make sure we're okay with the order of items. within our public hearing. 6A being 202 Valley and then 6B being... Thank you. you the 110 4th Street. Is everybody okay with that or have any other comments? Seeing none, I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda as is. |
| 00:01:56.77 | Andrew Junius | MOVING TO THE CITY. |
| 00:01:57.03 | Richard Graef | Approved? I've got you, Richard. Sorry. All right. I second. |
| 00:01:59.35 | Kristina Feller | I got you, Richard. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Junius and Vice Chair Graff. Director Scoble, if you could please take the roll call. |
| 00:02:08.84 | Heidi | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 00:02:12.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:02:13.16 | Heidi | Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:02:14.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:02:15.59 | Heidi | Chair, Graff. Yeah. Chair Feller. |
| 00:02:18.31 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:02:19.38 | Heidi | Motion carries unanimously. |
| 00:02:21.22 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. Item three on our agenda this evening is communications. And I will start off with handing this over back to you, Director Scoble for staff communications. |
| 00:02:34.18 | Heidi | Thank you, Chair Feller. As we discussed at our last meeting and during agenda setting, there are just a few staff updates that I'd like to provide. One is regarding the Plat tree update. As you would recall last August, I believe, There were trees on plat that were topped. And so the city has been working on a code enforcement case. Unfortunately, I was not able to get communication as to a true status update regarding this. But what staff can do is we can provide the planning commission next week with a one-way communication regarding a status update and next steps. So we have that. And another item was the North Street stairs as late mail in a one-way communication and also attached to our agenda this evening, senior engineer, Andy Davison provided a memo regarding that update and good news, it looks like That project is almost completed. We, the city have hired a contractor to put code compliant railings in, and they're just working on the finishing touches and those should be installed shortly. regarding the... Okay, regarding the tree replacement fee. I wanted to let the planning commissioners know that on February 15th, the city council will be reviewing an item to identify and approve a tree, or hopefully approve, consider take action on a tree replacement fee that will hopefully facilitate future tree removals as we go through when a tree replacement fee is required. I know that's been kind of a sticking point with the Planning Commission for our last few tree permits. And hopefully this guidance and policy adoption will provide the direction that is needed to collect that fee and identify how we use that fee. So that's in process. |
| 00:04:19.94 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:21.34 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:04:21.37 | Mary Wagner | Oh, sorry. |
| 00:04:21.96 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:04:22.05 | Mary Wagner | No, no, please, Mary, and if you'd like to jump in. |
| 00:04:22.18 | Heidi | No, no, please, Mary, and if you'd like to jump in. |
| 00:04:24.77 | Mary Wagner | If I may, Madam Chair, I'd like to add a little bit to that because I know that the commission was expecting to hear a report back on this. And I appreciate their interim community development director kicking it off. So as you all know, under the provisions in the Municipal Code for Tree Removal Permits, under Section 1112.030.B2, to be exact, in order to grant a tree removal permit, the planning committee commission has to make a finding that either... The tree will be replaced by a desirable tree. or the commission waives that requirement. The commission has received a lot of requests from applicants recently in the past year or so to not have to replace the tree, but the commission wanted to ensure that other trees are available in the community. And often the city has a need for replacement trees in the parks or on other city property. So in lieu of requiring a replacement tree and without waiving that requirement, the commission has created conditions that require payment of a fee that could be utilized by the city to replace the tree elsewhere, perhaps on city property. So all those conditions are valid. And I think there was some concern about that. We do need to document that. And so as chair or community development director Scoble indicated, we're gonna bring an item forward to the city council to consider an amendment to the ordinance to add language to that provision to say that the committee commission could also uh require payment of an in-lieu fee and that fee would then go into a tree fund we'll work with the finance department to ensure that that fund is appropriately noted and then community development department will go back and trace any conditions of approval that have been put in place previously and determine the status of those particular conditions we're targeting the second meeting in february we'll work with the agenda committee of the mayor and the vice mayor to ensure that that works with the council's schedule. And given that this is a change to chapter 1112 and not to the zoning ordinance, it does not require that we return to the planning commission. The council may ask us to do that, but we think we understand the commission's desire in this regard, particularly given the actions that you've taken to date. There is a little bit of work to do to determine what the amount should be charged for the replacement tree. One option that I've spoken with staff about is having that put into the arborist report that comes forward from the applicant for the tree removal permit. What the value of a replacement tree would be that would be viable because as we all know you know you can't plant a full mature tree and expect it to thrive in certain environments. So that's the status update. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have and I appreciate the opportunity. |
| 00:07:24.74 | Heidi | Thank you so much, Mary, for filling in that gap and providing that thorough update. It was very helpful. The other item that the Planning Commission wanted an update was the unraveling or sloughing of the hillsides and what the city is doing today. The Director of Public Works Kevin McGowan provided a statement which was then forwarded again to the Planning Commission this afternoon as a one-way communication and uploaded to our agenda regarding a summary of what the department is doing the department of public works is actively monitoring that hillside sloughing the city is also going into contract or pursuing a geological hazard study for Sausalito and so during that study that's where we'll do a deeper dive and assessment in terms of what the true risks relative to those soils are the director of public works also indicated that he would be happy to return to the planning commission and provide more of an update or presentation on what they're doing to date and also to have the city's geological consultant provide a presentation to the planning commission as well. So through planning commission agenda setting, we can work with the public works department to schedule that. And the last item before I hand it over to Rosalyn, is that My interim community development director duties are ending this Friday. I will be returning back to the city manager's office and resume my assistance of the city manager, city clerk slash IT manager responsibilities. It has been an amazing pleasure working with the planning commission and the community development department staff and our city attorney. My, has been in community development and planning, and it's where my heart is. And I really appreciated this opportunity. I'm really happy to announce that the city manager has selected an amazing community development director to take on this full-time position. That gentleman is Jim Moore. There was an article in the Associate of Currents that, described his background and his experience And he used to live in Sausalito and was a former planning commissioner. And under the leadership of Jim and Roslyn, I am super excited for the department moving forward. So with that, I will hand it over to Roblin. |
| 00:09:57.25 | Rozalynne Thompson | Thank you, Heidi. So since the last update on the project known as the Valhalla, located at 201 Bridgeway and 206 2nd Street, the city surveyor has received a parcel map from the applicant. The parcel map is being reviewed by the city surveyor at this time. If the submittal satisfies the city's requirements, then the parcel map will be placed as a consent item on an upcoming city council meeting agenda. Staff will draft a staff report to accompany the item. Also on January 7th, the applicant requested from BCDC an extension of their permit to construct the beach ramp access. On January 21st, the Department of Public Works sent a letter to BCDC in support of granting the extension. As the construction time limits for the project are approaching, staff will schedule a check-in with the applicant to discuss an extension of the construction time limits, which will require Planning Commission approval and the outstanding conditions of approval. Also, staff will coordinate across departments regarding the construction of the bus turnout along 2nd Street. |
| 00:11:06.36 | Heidi | So with that, that concludes our staff updates. Does the commission have any other questions of staff regarding any updates? that we missed. |
| 00:11:15.62 | Kristina Feller | Well, thank you all three of you, Heidi, Rosalind, Mary, for keeping us updated, keeping us informed and following up with us. It's so valuable to us. First and foremost, Yeah. Thank you so much, Heidi, for stepping in to community development and, um, taking on this role even temporary we're so happy that we got to work with you and I'm sure other commissioners have comments to that as well that I'll let them do on their own |
| 00:11:48.98 | Kathleen Andreessen | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. |
| 00:11:49.39 | Kristina Feller | here, but just happy that you're staying within the city of Sausalito family. And I look forward to continuing to work with you. |
| 00:11:59.12 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. |
| 00:12:00.31 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner side, did you have any. I'll have a moment to come back. |
| 00:12:03.83 | Nastassya Saad | I want to say thank you for all the updates, but yes, thank you, Heidi. You are a wonderful director and under your guidance, I think we really moved things along very swiftly. And so just a huge, huge thank you. Like Chair Feller said, it'd be great to see you around and love that you're still part of our city. So happy to keep working with you in any capacity. |
| 00:12:28.50 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Luxenberg. |
| 00:12:30.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Same for me. No, not on mute. Heidi, it was great of you to step in. Your background is in Glennon, so I think you've done an excellent job over the last several months and kept the ship. Good to use the Sausalito. analogy, the ship in the right direction. So thank you. |
| 00:12:54.76 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Junius. |
| 00:12:56.10 | Andrew Junius | I echo all those comments. Heidi, it's been a pleasure. I can't wait to see you. personally around city hall one day when we all get to see each other again. But It's been a really an honor and a pleasure working with you and your expertise has been invaluable in this gap time while we bring on our new person. So thank you so much for your for your help. And I did have a question for Mary. Is this the project as well? Please. Mary, on the tree stuff, are we gonna see, when is the draft ordinance gonna be available or is that just the start of that process or is that gonna be on the agenda for the public and everybody to see? drop ordinance on the tree fund. |
| 00:13:30.22 | Mary Wagner | be on the city council agenda in their normal agenda setting time frame for the public and everyone to see. Perfect. |
| 00:13:38.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:13:38.69 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:13:38.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:13:38.77 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:13:39.67 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair Graff? |
| 00:13:41.29 | Richard Graef | Thank you Chair Fowler. Well, regarding Heidi, ditto to everything that has been said. I've known Heidi since she first came to the city as an assistant planner back when I was on the design review board. And she has been in and out. And it's always been great working with her. And I sincerely appreciate all of her. help in her role and hope she sticks with us. |
| 00:14:15.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:15.12 | Richard Graef | No. |
| 00:14:15.15 | Unknown | you know. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 00:14:16.37 | Richard Graef | I mean, |
| 00:14:16.61 | Unknown | or Thank you. |
| 00:14:19.24 | Kristina Feller | And finally, Heidi, thank you also for bringing Roslyn to us because she has been steadfast and steady and a great leader as well. And we're looking forward to continuing to grow CDD with Roslyn and with Jim when he starts next week. So thank you for that. |
| 00:14:35.61 | Unknown | dark. |
| 00:14:36.10 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. |
| 00:14:38.51 | Kristina Feller | I had a friend that used to it. And thank you, Mary, for the update on the tree fund. That's a huge relief. And as we have certain things in front of us this evening, it's very relevant. So thank you very much for prioritizing that with agenda setting with city council. Thank you for that. |
| 00:14:50.42 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:50.66 | Martina Quinn | you're going to be |
| 00:14:50.71 | Unknown | work. |
| 00:14:51.22 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 00:14:56.58 | Mary Wagner | Thank you for the opportunity, Chair Fuller. |
| 00:14:59.13 | Kristina Feller | Let's see, this sort of connects a little bit with the report out from subcommittees and from commissioners as well. And we'll start with objective design standards that was also agendas on consent last night at City Council. |
| 00:15:15.04 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. |
| 00:15:15.06 | Unknown | Oh my God. |
| 00:15:15.65 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. |
| 00:15:16.43 | Kristina Feller | So I will ask Commissioner Junius, who's really been leading the way on this, to maybe report out on that. And if staff would like to add anything to that, feel free to do so. |
| 00:15:28.66 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Yeah, the Objective Standards Committee is moving along. Last night, the city council did approve the funds necessary to bring up to coast in closer to work with our little team and start to customize. the toolkit for salt solito's use. extremely excited about that important step and we do thank the city council for taking that action Our next little committee meeting is tomorrow morning, I think, Christina. So we'll be seeing you bright and early. in the months ahead, we don't necessarily know I don't know how long this will take, We are focused and we are going to get this done. And so I think that's the end of that report. |
| 00:16:08.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:16:08.08 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 00:16:08.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, any other items, Commissioner Giudice? |
| 00:16:11.19 | Andrew Junius | I did have a couple more things, thank you Chair Feller. You know, in the news last week, you know, the city and county of San Francisco is big housing producer and also a big uh, political situation and the lawsuits are starting to fly with the housing and the large projects that if anybody noticed, there were two very large housing projects were denied at the last second and are now the subject of lawsuits. So we're gonna be closely, I'm gonna be personally closely watching that. It's a fascinating situation. where the Housing Accountability Act and where the interface with CEQA comes in is going to be really interesting in the next year. And I think it's gonna tell everybody that reading the tea leaves about how cities are gonna have to react to these issues. I think it's gonna be really fascinating. And then one other comment, just a general comment as a relatively new commissioner, I'm really enjoying the work here. I also would like to encourage as a general matter, you know, applicants and professionals working with the property owners and project sponsors that come before us. You know, please help the staff help us. with the findings. It's your job to start. explaining how your projects fit into our code and why we should be approving them. So it's really well worth your time. And we do get good products, I think, from the staff for sure. we don't get to see your applications. And so we strongly encourage everybody on the development side, the property owner side and the professional side to really, you know, bear down on those findings and think about them and really take them seriously because that really helps the staff. And in the end, it helps us. So thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:17:45.03 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you very much. Since you're touching on housing, I'm going to ask Commissioner Saad, who's a member of the housing element advisory committee or HIAC for short If you wouldn't mind reporting out on that and any other one way communications you have as well. |
| 00:18:01.97 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you, Chair Feller. So we had a meeting this past Monday on the 24th. Its main focus was to go over the criteria for potential proposed sites for HIAC. STARTING TO LOOK AT the units that we have to produce for the RENA numbers. We also went over the citywide surveys that are intending to go out, one for residents and one for people that work in town There are some outstanding questions. Currently, it was a really robust discussion on Monday. And so there are still some outstanding questions on site suitability and how it's going to be measured. Essentially, there's a point system. There's also a binder, a HIAC binder with a lot of really helpful information that's also available for everyone to look at including the public so that I would encourage anyone to go to the city website if you're interested in any of the background information the next scheduled there's going to be a town hall I believe coming up on February 10th that's from five to seven that's going to be a really important time for the entire community I strongly encourage everyone to join and share it as far reaching as possible to go over site suitability, answer a lot of questions and have a discussion. There's a lot to get done in a very short amount of time. Also on that past agenda on the 24th, and I need to double check if it's in the binder, but something that was very useful was the, outputs of each meeting that are expected. So it sort of keeps everybody on track, not only on our schedule, but really what the intention is for each meeting. So encouraging the public to check that out to see if you can't attend all of them, what may be of most interest based on what, is expected of the committee at that meeting to please join and come give your opinions and weigh in. Um, so the next meeting I think is coming up on the 28th and that's after the town, town hall. So be great to see what, what we get out of that discussion. |
| 00:20:15.50 | Kristina Feller | And just for clarification, it's February 28th is the next regular key act meeting. And it's February 10th for the town hall, which is the first of four. |
| 00:20:26.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:26.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:20:26.44 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:20:26.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:20:26.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:27.08 | Kristina Feller | And then the binder that you're referring to just for the benefit of the public here is a virtual binder. And so there are a number of different links and resources in there. as we go through healthy debates and discussions, at least we're all starting from and looking at the same base material for which to draw our own conclusions. And the public interface and participation is paramount in this whole process. It's absolutely critical. And just would like to echo Commissioner Saad and just please ensure that you are able to write in if you're not if you're not able to attend and hopefully also attend as well virtually all meetings are offered virtually. |
| 00:21:18.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. That's all that I had for HIAC and my one-way communications. |
| 00:21:24.37 | Kristina Feller | Um, Director Scoble, I see your hand up. Did you want to add to that as well? |
| 00:21:28.99 | Heidi | I was just, it's a segue onto an item that I was remiss in reporting out on. It was regarding SB9, which is also, as you know, a housing law. Last night, the city council did adopt interim policies, but they also adopted a timeline to move forward with regulations related to SB9. And I wanted to bring to the attention of the planning commission that at the March 16th meeting, our city attorney and our principal planner will be providing a stock report on the proposed SB9 regulations for planning commission consideration and a recommendation to the city council. |
| 00:22:06.66 | Kristina Feller | So, so that will be at the planning commission hearing, there'll be a presentation to this body. Thank you. |
| 00:22:12.95 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 00:22:13.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:22:14.39 | Mary Wagner | And if I if I may chair fell or not to belabor this too much so you know the Council took action in November to direct staff to develop interim guidance to process any applications under SB 9 that came in before the city had an opportunity to adopt an implementing ordinance as allowed. |
| 00:22:15.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:22:30.00 | Mary Wagner | under SB9. So the council received that report last night And as your community development director indicated, approved a schedule to bring that ordinance back to the council for consideration. And because it is going to include modifications to the zoning ordinance, it'll be brought to the planning commission first for review and recommendation to the city council. And there will be legislative committee review in there either before the planning commission or after the planning commission before it goes to the council. |
| 00:23:02.73 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:23:04.13 | Mary Wagner | Be good. |
| 00:23:04.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Um, One last item on the housing element. And if I could ask principal planner Thompson to assist here. regarding the stakeholder outreach and how stakeholders, either individual or entities, to register as stakeholders in our HIAC process. And if you could confirm if that will continue to be published in Soslito Currents as well, to make sure that we're reaching our full community here. |
| 00:23:39.08 | Rozalynne Thompson | Chair Feller, that's correct. So in our current, actually on our website, we're going to have a link for stakeholders to register. We're working on that with DeNovo. And we will definitely be advertising that link in Sausalito Currents. |
| 00:23:58.47 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg, you've also been quite busy in your tasks if you want to report out on that and any other items that you want to bring to the attention of staff or the commission. |
| 00:24:12.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | First, I just want to thank the Community Development Department for bringing forth the update on the North Street steps. That was greatly appreciated. The PowerClip Working Group continues to do its work. It's now meeting regularly and will come out with guidelines for a recommendation to the City Council for a permanent program probably sometime in February or early March. So that continues at this time. Thank you, Chair Pellett. |
| 00:24:42.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. In regards to the parklet, if we could ask staff to maybe communicate to either city council agenda setting or the city council that a follow-up to our one-way communication to them from December, giving them an update that it's looking like instead of the end of this month, it'll be probably mid-February that we can provide either another one-way communication to them with information or we're happy to meet or present to them as well. |
| 00:25:16.92 | Chris Park | Okay. |
| 00:25:18.07 | Kristina Feller | All right, Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:25:22.39 | Richard Graef | um, Thank you. I don't really have anything to report because I haven't been on any active committees recently. So. |
| 00:25:32.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right, thank you. |
| 00:25:33.51 | Richard Graef | But I look forward to being on some in the future. |
| 00:25:37.16 | Kristina Feller | Oh, we'll keep you busy. You started the parklet, so that was critical. Your benchmarking is very important. |
| 00:25:44.77 | Richard Graef | All right. |
| 00:25:46.44 | Kristina Feller | Um, Let's see, in terms of any communications from me, if you could also please thank Director McGowan for his update and the memos regarding some of the questions we had and observations regarding, you know, some sloughing on some of our streets and hills. if there's anything again that this commission can help them with as well so that's a two-way street i mean he's very helpful to us but we're happy to help him as we can. Happy to do that. Um, So I appreciate that. I'm not sure. I'll also note that the community development quarterly report was presented to the city council last night and we had asked the opportunity to provide input to you and so as we move forward We just want to make sure that a lot of the activities that we are taking on that those are accurately reported to City Council. So if there's a way that we can work that out, I think that would be important because every member of this commission, I think deserves that opportunity. And it just provides a more robust report that is also meant to assist staff. I have an ongoing question about enforcement in general. As you know, EDAC had committed to creating a enforcement task force regarding CEPs. We had appointed Commissioner Junius as our liaison from Planning Commission to work with them and help that and support that initiative that we know is quite important. And, but that we revoked that because there was no activity And I just wanna make sure that we're keeping enforcement in general, no matter who's taking this on, at front and center in the city. Because as we're looking at a lot of new legislation coming down, which impacts our city and change of use and that affects CUPs, The business and retail strategy here in Sausalito is really important to know It helps guide us. It's an important tool for us. If there's any way we can get or hands on that or a presentation on that that would be helpful. and then also couple that with the issue of enforcement, ongoing enforcement of existing businesses, retail, or other entities. That would be really good. if staff can help Um, push that initiative and just help keep us informed. It makes everything we talk about here and the actions we take much more meaningful and the information's useful. That's all I had. Okay, if there are no other comments, for a sign or a hand from any of you. It does not look like that. So. I think at this time we need to take public comment So, uh, director Scoble, if you could please provide some instruction to our members in the audience here on how to raise their hand in the Zoom application. |
| 00:29:14.12 | Heidi | Thank you, Chair Feller. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you'll be called upon when it's your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has left. |
| 00:29:31.92 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you very much. So I'm looking for raised hands in the audience. So we welcome you this evening for comments, any public comments on items not on the agenda. or any items mentioned in our one way communication. I am not seeing any hands at this time. So I'm gonna go ahead and I'll close public comments. And let's move on to item number five. |
| 00:30:02.63 | Heidi | This is the time for the planning commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except for very limited situations. State law precludes the planning commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the planning commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized for a future meeting. So similar to our last item, public participation will be via Zoom and video or audio public comment can be taken by using the Zoom application or pressing star nine on your phone. |
| 00:30:37.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'm looking for any raised hands. Again, items not on the agenda this evening. |
| 00:30:47.27 | Kristina Feller | I do not see any hands at this time, so I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. and move on in our agenda. I believe the next item is approval of Planning Commission meeting minutes. So I'll just ask if there is a Any comments on the notes? from our last meeting. If not, I will entertain a motion to approve. |
| 00:31:13.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No move. |
| 00:31:15.27 | Kristina Feller | I'll second. Thank you very much. Director Scoville, could you please take the roll? Thank you. |
| 00:31:20.99 | Heidi | Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:31:21.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:31:21.83 | Heidi | you Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg. Yes. |
| 00:31:24.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:31:24.71 | Heidi | Commissioner Arginia? Yes. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:31:27.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:31:27.95 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:31:28.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:31:28.60 | Heidi | Chair Feller. Thank you. |
| 00:31:29.90 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:31:30.82 | Heidi | Motion passes unanimously. |
| 00:31:32.92 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. So onto item number six, public hearing. I'll hand that over to you, Director Scoble. |
| 00:31:39.41 | Heidi | Thank you, Chair Feller. The first public hearing item is a request for a tree removal permit at 202 Valley Street. Assistant planner Alina Lipp will be providing the presentation. So with that, I'll hand it over to you, Alina. |
| 00:31:53.29 | Alaina Lipp | Good evening, Planning Commission. Just a moment while I share my screen. |
| 00:31:59.09 | Unknown | And |
| 00:32:05.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:10.04 | Alaina Lipp | All right, can you see my screen? a tree removal permit to Valley Street. |
| 00:32:16.03 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:32:16.94 | Alaina Lipp | Project ID 2021-00251. I'm sorry, is my internet unstable? |
| 00:32:24.94 | Kristina Feller | Keep going, Elena. It's okay. |
| 00:32:30.41 | Heidi | Elena, you may want to just turn off your video for the purposes of the presentation. And then once you... The request... |
| 00:32:40.38 | Alaina Lipp | Is that sufficient? Um, The project request is for a tree removal at 202 Valley Street. This is a five unit HOA at the corner of Second and Valley. The applicant is Sausalito Bayside Homeowners Association, represented by Diane Marando. And the removal would be of two heritage Lombardy poplar trees. You can see here both |
| 00:33:15.25 | Alaina Lipp | These two trees are 20 inches and 33 inches measured at breast height and are approximately 50 feet tall. This qualifies them as heritage trees. The trees are located near the corner of Valley and 2nd adjacent to Unit 2. The trees prevents enjoyment of the outdoor space by casting too much shade onto the property. The trees are currently healthy, but the Arborist report rates Lombardy poplars as having wheat branches that are prone to failure and roots with high damage potential. And so recommends the removal. |
| 00:33:47.92 | Alaina Lipp | In order to grant a tree removal permit, the Planning Commission must find an application meets the objectives and conditions laid out in section 11.12.030. B 1 through 3 of the South Slido City Code and I'm going to go through those sections here for you and how this project request meets those findings. Um, Number one, in order to grant the tree removal or alteration permit, it must be determined that removal or alteration is necessary in order to accomplish any one of the following objectives. The applicant is allowing is asking the Planning Commission to allow this dream in order to reasonably enjoy the property and allow sunlight to enter. into that unit too. And then number two, in order to grant the true removal permit, it must be determined that any one of the following conditions is satisfied. either that the tree to be removed will be replaced by a desirable tree Or in this case, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission waive this requirement They do not propose to replace the three with another. |
| 00:34:59.16 | Alaina Lipp | Staff recommends that these two criteria can be made by the Planning Commission and recommends to approve the tree removal permit for both Lombardy popular trees. Other options for the Planning Commission are to approve the tree removal permit with modifications, deny the tree removal permit or continue the agenda item with direction to the applicant regarding revisions to the application. Staff is available for questions and Diane Morando is on the line to present the seat |
| 00:35:34.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Elena, for your presentation and your work with the applicant to get this in front of us here this evening. That's much appreciated. Just real quick, As part of our standard procedure, I just want to confirm any public comment that we've received in writing on this item. |
| 00:35:53.65 | Alaina Lipp | We have received a public comment Let me pull this up for you. |
| 00:36:09.23 | Alaina Lipp | It's from the Sausalito Beautiful. It was received today. |
| 00:36:14.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:36:18.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:36:26.19 | Kristina Feller | Right. Okay. Um, and this is posted onto Granite cause with the rest of the agenda. |
| 00:36:33.41 | Alaina Lipp | Yes, I believe so. |
| 00:36:35.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Okay, so this is a time for commissioners to ask any questions or items for clarification to staff. before we ask the applicant to come and present to us. Commissioner Junius. Nothing. Okay. Commissioner Lepsenburg. |
| 00:36:56.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. Do you know if the applicant considered pruning of the trees? I mean, I understand they need to get sunlight into the building, but did they consider either pruning the trees or only taking one tree out? Were there some options considered on this, do you know? |
| 00:37:15.19 | Alaina Lipp | I believe in the Arborist report, they went over options for pruning or topping the trees and they considered it to be too much of a maintenance consideration, an ongoing maintenance issue. |
| 00:37:30.73 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:37:31.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:37:33.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay, is that it, Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:37:36.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, the other question I have is you did not go through the denial, the items which we must find that We don't need the project doesn't meet for denial. You did not go through that in your presentation? |
| 00:37:51.81 | Alaina Lipp | I do have a slide for that if you would like me to review those findings. |
| 00:37:55.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I leave that to the other commissioners, but I think that might be helpful to your fellow. |
| 00:37:55.61 | Alaina Lipp | Oh. |
| 00:38:00.70 | Kristina Feller | I agree with you and that would be helpful, Alayna, if you don't mind. |
| 00:38:07.79 | Alaina Lipp | So a finding of any one of the following is grounds for denial. Um, A, that the removal of the healthy tree of a desired species can be avoided by various methods of altering the tree. B, adequate provisions for drainage, erosion control, land stability, windscreen, etc. can be made. It was the finding of staff that these were not a consideration in this case. That the tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees. We did not feel that that applied. Um, That the value of the tree to the neighborhood is greater than its inconvenience to the owner. The effects on visual, auditory and wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation must be considered the need for protection of privacy for the property on which the tree is located and or adjacent properties. |
| 00:39:00.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. |
| 00:39:03.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, and thank you, Elena, for going over that. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:39:11.34 | Nastassya Saad | And then first off, I had the same question about pruning. So thank you to... Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:39:16.69 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:39:19.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:39:19.78 | Richard Graef | No questions. |
| 00:39:20.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:39:21.38 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, Alina, did you go by and visit the property? |
| 00:39:27.43 | Alaina Lipp | I have driven by a few times, but not for the preparation of this particular application. They'd been in the neighborhood recently, so I recalled the trees. |
| 00:39:38.53 | Kristina Feller | I walk by this a lot, but today I actually went down and got out of the car and looked around and what was interesting to me is that all of the shades on those western and I'm not sure if the unit number two which is mentioned here specifically is the upper or lower but in both those units on that western edge I mean all the blinds were down in both units So I find it strange that they would be looking to remove the trees to allow sunlight when they're gonna keep their blinds down anyway. And I have the same question about pruning. Uh, or windowing. Um, and also I would argue that the Ivy vine growing on one of them is probably bushier and larger than the actual tree near a window. And removing that, it could solve this whole problem. So I was wondering if you had spoken to the applicant about that. |
| 00:40:37.47 | Alaina Lipp | I had not spoken to them about that item. I'll let them, discuss that with the planning commission at their presentation. |
| 00:40:46.40 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then in the... both in your report, but also in the arborist report. Um, there are strong comments that the trees have a negative value. Um, and equal the cost of the removal. And just for the record, I completely disagree with that. conclusion. Um, these are two. of admittedly extremely healthy trees. that are heritage trees in our city. I don't at all think that they have negative value. So I just want for the record to state that I think that that statement is not defensible or justifiable. And I don't know, again, if you had that conversation with the applicant. |
| 00:41:37.31 | Alaina Lipp | I believe they took that from the arborist report that they contracted for the support of their permit. |
| 00:41:44.45 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I see where they took it. I'm asking if you. Uh... Question them about that. |
| 00:41:51.05 | Alaina Lipp | I did not question the arborists, how they came to that conclusion. |
| 00:41:56.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And it, and. It seems like if these apartments were built in 1991, and these trees are approximately 35 years old, these trees were likely planted after the building was already there, not the other way around. Is that what you concluded as well? |
| 00:42:20.90 | Alaina Lipp | I believe so. This project was primarily processed by a previous contract planner. so i think a lot of those in initial conversations were had between the contract planner and the applicant |
| 00:42:33.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Thank you, Elena. Thank you very much. Um, do any of the commissioners have any other questions for staff at this time? I don't. I just might show of hands. Okay. Now I think, um, If the applicant is in the audience here, and Alina, you can help us, Find her. If we could add. |
| 00:42:56.99 | Alaina Lipp | could add. |
| 00:42:59.90 | Kristina Feller | Sorry? |
| 00:43:00.30 | Alaina Lipp | Thank you. Diane, Diane Marando. |
| 00:43:03.73 | Kristina Feller | Is it just Diane? the name Diane, if that's you and you can share your screen so we can see you. |
| 00:43:13.92 | Alaina Lipp | She should be joining tonight by phone. I don't think she'll be able to join |
| 00:43:21.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:43:22.71 | Alaina Lipp | Yeah, so Diane, if you can unmute yourself. You can do that from your phone by either swiping left or right. |
| 00:43:30.93 | Diane Marando | This is Diane Miranda. Can you hear me? |
| 00:43:34.46 | Kristina Feller | yes welcome diane uh thank you for for attending um this evening and um And we look forward to your presentation. And I'm not sure if you can see our timer clock. but we will have the timer clock up there. and allow you 15 minutes for any presentation or discussion you would like. So the floor is yours. |
| 00:43:57.97 | Diane Marando | Thank you. Well, I don't really have a presentation per se, I am, my name is Diane Miranda and I'm with Ellendell Property Management here in Sausalito. and we manage the homeowners association the Sausalito Bayside Homeowners Association at 202 Valley Street. |
| 00:44:16.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:44:16.73 | Diane Marando | So on behalf of the board of directors, I am presenting this information for the tree removal permit. I'm not sure. And you know, Basically, I have the same information that you have seen, which is the arborist report, the you know, the findings by Elena. I'm not sure. you know, I will say, in kind of response to some of the comments or questions. that. NOT ONLY Is it sunlight that is, desired by the residents of the property, but there are also, there's also, and I don't know if you saw this, that. but I'm not sure what's going on There is also a... Thank you. canvas awning that covers the parking area below these trees. WHICH IS ANOTHER THEIR OWNERS. issue with with the trees. and... Right next to those two trees is a really beautiful coast live oak. WHICH will obviously remain and thrive. in the places you know, right next to the, THE TWO where the two trees we're hoping to have removed. I'm not sure if I'm not There are also some shrubs which kind of are around the perimeter, along the sidewalk, THEIR OWNERS. at the corner of Valley and Second Street. So, We're hoping to THE CITY IS A Project approved. |
| 00:45:57.42 | Diane Marando | and, That's basically all I have unless somebody has questions. |
| 00:46:01.66 | Kristina Feller | Well, thank you so much for being here this evening. Just in case, I will note that you have a little over, you have almost 13 minutes left. Should you need to use it in any it later on in this portion of the hearing, it's yours to use so we can come back to that. But appreciate you being here tonight and speaking on behalf of the homeowners. in any of the tenants in there. I'm just going to, if you could please stay on the line here. If commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time, Commissioner San? |
| 00:46:38.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I'd like to ask maybe also just for the benefit and clarity, is it the homeowner's responsibility to maintain this tree. YES. |
| 00:46:53.85 | Diane Marando | Thank you. the There are five units in the complex, and there are four owners of the five units. and they all reside or use their units you know, themselves, they are not tenant occupied. and and it is a responsibility of the Homeowners Association to maintain all of the landscaping you know, common area. That's the property. |
| 00:47:23.25 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And with that, do you happen to have any information on the maintenance of those TREES IN the history, recent history, past few years, five years, 10 years, what's been done in terms of maintenance? Would you have that information? |
| 00:47:42.52 | Diane Marando | You know, I don't have that information. |
| 00:47:46.39 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I think that's all from me for this moment, Chair Fowler. |
| 00:47:52.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:47:56.64 | Andrew Junius | I just a follow up question. Thank you, Chair Feller. um to the applicant again so that you don't even know if the trees have ever been trimmed or even it maintained it anyway. |
| 00:48:06.57 | Diane Marando | I DON'T. property probably five years. I think that's a good question. four or five years, and I don't know that they've been trimmed in that except for, you know, the, and clean up maintenance of whatever. you know, branches or leaves or, maintenance needs to be done. I don't know that they've been trimmed at all. |
| 00:48:29.53 | Andrew Junius | and that you've never been asked to get a trimming quote, I mean, it sounds like your the company is in charge of that maintenance on behalf of the owners. But, Again, no. I get it, these small, They're very, very, very, very, very you know, tight on budget and things like that, but it sounds like you've got to be able to do that. you've been doing. landscaping but no tree trimming. in your budget. |
| 00:48:55.66 | Diane Marando | Right, I did speak to one of the that we're doing. was going to possibly remove the trees and That person mentioned to me THAT. He didn't feel that trimming was going to be valuable. in this case. I'm not sure. with these particular trees. THAT'S A Obviously I don't have anything to back that up, That's what I was told. |
| 00:49:24.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:49:28.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fowler. I don't think I have any questions for the applicant. I looked through the participant list. I'm not seeing the arborist. I think I would have a question of the arborist of how they came to their conclusion with regard to why trimming wasn't possible. But the applicant has described what she knows. So I don't, I really don't have any other questions for the applicant at this time. |
| 00:49:52.54 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:49:56.05 | Richard Graef | Um, uh, no questions, really. Uh, not yet at this point. |
| 00:50:01.77 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I guess And Diane, you'll forgive me for calling you by your first name. I did not get your laptop. |
| 00:50:09.01 | Diane Marando | That's okay. |
| 00:50:09.70 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:50:10.50 | Kristina Feller | Um, um, But I'm not actually seeing where it says that trimming or windowing is has any would be detrimental to this species. A lot of time poplars don't like to be topped. But I don't think being talked is really the issue to what you're, what you're looking for. Um, And you know, these poplar trees are actually on the desirable planting lists from Southern Moon Fire. So these are definitely very desirable. And, you know, so we have to be careful here But I'm actually not seeing where it says don't trim it. Most trees, usually you're on an annual trimming so the prices don't get so astronomical to wait too long. But if you've been managing this for five years and it's never been trimmed, then I'm sure you wouldn't have records on what happened before. Um, |
| 00:51:08.85 | Diane Marando | No, I don't have records on what happened before. |
| 00:51:12.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I don't have any other questions of the applicant right now. And if the other commissioners do not, then we're going to go ahead and open this up to public comment. So before I do that, just Diane, if you can go back on mute, you'll have the benefit of hearing any public comment. And then we'll come back, the commission comes back to sort of deliberate. We may or may not have any other questions for you. or you may or may not want to use some of your time in any conclusion remarks, depending on what the public may say, So that's sort of the process we have here. So at this time I'd like to open up public comments on this item A. To do so, if you could press star nine in your Zoom application, Excuse me, if you could raise your hand in the Zoom application, forgive me, or press star nine on your cell phone. then we're gonna look for raised hands now from any member of the public who'd like to comment on this item. |
| 00:52:15.51 | Kristina Feller | Staff, I'm not seeing any raised hands. Could you just confirm that for me? |
| 00:52:23.49 | Martina Quinn | That is correct. There are no reasons at this time. |
| 00:52:27.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Maria. All right, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comments and bring the discussion back up to our virtual dais here on the screen. Um, Would anyone like to start off the discussion? Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:52:44.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I am having a lot of difficulty with this particular application. In all due respect to the applicant, I realize your arborist is not here to help explain, but it really does not seem that there's any evidence of maintenance. And to your point, Chair Feller, It's not in the arborist report around pruning or trimming And I agreed with your earlier statement as well on the negative value. Not being an arborist myself, I just, I can't even, I still can't rectify how they came to that conclusion. It's. It's a little confusing things THAT. To me personally, that staff has made a recommendation to approve based on what we have in front of us. I can't quite understand how that was reached based on the provided information. I think we've seen Arborist reports before from, I think it's Dr. Kent, Dr. Julian Kent, they're usually they're really solid. if that's his conclusion that they're healthy, it makes it very difficult to to remove a healthy tree without any effort to maintain it. I personally can't make the findings. I'd be open to a discussion, but that's where I am right now. |
| 00:54:01.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you very much. Todd Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:54:06.66 | Andrew Junius | I completely agree with Commissioner Saad. I don't think I can make the findings either. And I certainly entertain a motion to deny. |
| 00:54:12.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:54:15.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur as well. I don't think I can make the findings. I think that it doesn't require copying i think it just requires windowing or or some other thing and i in my read of the arborist report they weren't saying that wasn't possible so i understand the need to get light to the units and that i think would be fine but i think there's an alternative solution to that so |
| 00:54:40.14 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. of oistrographs. |
| 00:54:43.33 | Richard Graef | Yes, I concur. It seems to me that um, some work on the trees would go a long way to getting some of the light that they desire and it looks to be a lot of other vegetation there besides just the trees. So it seems to me that they're must be ways to make a significant difference about taking out the trees. So I also cannot find uh, make the finances. |
| 00:55:19.29 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Thank you very much. Of course, I concur with the rest of the commissioners here. I'm surprised that this came to us at this time and I cannot make any of the findings. And in moving forward, with staff, when we're looking at two heritage trees of this size with a desired species in this city, Um, And they have not, you know, they're healthy. And They're happy that Coastal Live Oak looks very happy there as well, even though that's not the subject of this evening. Um, you know, I would... this does not meet the minimum threshold of any findings. So... I believe that this commission is on the same page and that this time I would entertain a motion |
| 00:56:15.62 | Andrew Junius | So moved. |
| 00:56:17.14 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so that's a motion for denial of this request. Vice chair. |
| 00:56:21.01 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:56:21.36 | Heidi | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:56:23.97 | Kristina Feller | back around. |
| 00:56:24.03 | Heidi | Right. Thank you. |
| 00:56:24.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay, second. Thank you. |
| 00:56:26.76 | Heidi | Yes. So if I may, Chair Feller and Planning Commissioners, Because there is only a draft resolution of approval that's in our packet, I would recommend that the motion be taken tonight, but this item be continued to the next meeting and that the resolution of denial is placed on a consent calendar since the Planning Commission would have already taken action on this. |
| 00:56:51.68 | Kristina Feller | I'm fine with that process. |
| 00:56:53.24 | Heidi | Oh. |
| 00:56:54.37 | Kristina Feller | Director Scoble I think you have a motion and a second here though. So do you want to take the roll? or do you wanna wait for the consent calendar? |
| 00:57:06.65 | Heidi | Well, I can take the role on the motion, but we'll also have to include in the motion, the motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial and continue this item to a date certain, which is the next meeting. And for this item to be placed on the calendar for action. |
| 00:57:22.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So I recommend that we amend the motion that Commissioner Junius made to include that language for staff to come back to the planning commission at our next hearing and prepare a motion for denial and put that on our consent calendar. |
| 00:57:43.69 | Andrew Junius | Chair Feller, I agree. |
| 00:57:45.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:57:47.08 | Andrew Junius | Good idea. |
| 00:57:47.68 | Heidi | Thank you. Absolutely. Is there a second? Sorry, I missed if there was a call. |
| 00:57:53.89 | Kristina Feller | of Vice Chair Brown. |
| 00:57:55.30 | Heidi | Okay, thank you. Apologies for that. So with that, I'll read the roll call. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:58:03.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:58:04.40 | Heidi | Commissioner Junius, |
| 00:58:05.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:58:06.39 | Heidi | Vice Chair Graff, |
| 00:58:07.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:58:08.11 | Heidi | Chair Feller. Thank you. |
| 00:58:09.04 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:58:10.83 | Heidi | Motion passes, you name it. |
| 00:58:13.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:58:13.61 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:58:13.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Okay, the next item on our agenda is item 6B, 110 4th Street for a design review permit and lot line adjustment. And I believe Cecilia will be making that presentation to us. |
| 00:58:30.84 | Heidi | Yes, and maybe before we start, Cecilia will be making the presentation. Cecilia is a consultant from MIG. And after the presentation, any questions can be directed towards Cecilia or our principal planner, Rosalyn Thompson. |
| 00:58:46.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:58:48.47 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Good evening, Commissioner. Cecilia Jaroslawski, contract. presenting this item before you tonight with your permission. I would like to share my screen. |
| 00:59:07.54 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Can everyone see that? |
| 00:59:09.80 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:59:11.73 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Great. You have a project before you located at 110 4th Street. |
| 00:59:19.59 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The site is located within the general plan, medium high density residential land use designation. and within the two family residential zoning districts. |
| 00:59:31.74 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The project site is located on two legal lots on the east side of 4th Street between Main and Valley Street. larger of the two parcels parcel 12 fronts on fourth street and is 55 feet wide by 100 feet deep is smaller of the two parcels. Parcel 23 is a vacant. landlocked undevelopable lot located at the rear of lot 12. and is 55 feet wide by 10 feet deep and contains 550 square feet. The project includes a lot line adjustment to merge the two lots, creating a lot 55 feet wide by 110 feet deep for a total of 6,050 square feet. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the project and determined that the subject property does not satisfy any of the qualifying criteria or historical resource. The project was presented and reviewed by the Planning Commission at a study session on March 3rd, 2021. where public comments were received and considered. The planning commission determined at that time, the project would be required to meet development standards and findings for requested exceptions to city standards could not be made. Further comments from residents regarding concerns over loss of use of the bay were considered Subsequently, the applicant has modified the project to comply with direction from the Planning Commission and address neighbor concerns. |
| 01:00:52.46 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The revised project includes the renovation and expansion of the existing 1,431 square foot single family residential structure and carport at the front of the subject property. a new construction of a 1,795 square foot single family residence at the rear of the subject property. Access to both residential structures would be from the front property line at 4th Street. The originally proposed freestanding barrage structure has been removed to incorporate a below grade garage car lift. Set back 10 feet from the front property line. One automobile vehicle would be lowered to allow a second vehicle to park above. Three additional parking spaces would be able to park along the front of the property. The new detached single-family structure would be located approximately 69 feet from the front property line and set back from the rear of the renovated structure approximately 16 feet 3 inches creating essentially located open space. |
| 01:01:57.36 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The project includes the installation of a four foot concrete sidewalk per city standards and an 18 foot curb cut to allow for a 20-foot-long driveway fronting on 4th Street, and a fully landscaped front yard with approximately 25 one gallon flax grasses in the front of the renovated structure and side yard. the existing overgrown fig tree would be removed. Additional native grasses and plant material would be installed on the Northern and Southern property lines. along with seven mature cypress trees to provide a privacy screen along the southern area of the site. the remaining large mature trees located at the rear of the property would remain to ensure privacy to the adjacent block. |
| 01:02:45.96 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The renovated existing residents at the front of the lot would retain the majority of the footprint and add approximately seven feet at the basement level at the rear of the structure. The renovation includes raising the structure one foot six inches to update and repair the foundation stabilize and create an eight-foot ceiling height on the lower floor while enlarging the footprint to add two bedrooms, two bathrooms and laundry area. The basement area would be incorporated into the house via new interior stair. The upper level would add approximately 10 feet into the front of the lot by adding a study over the carport. |
| 01:03:26.96 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Based on comments received at the study session, the applicant reduced the height of the renovated structure from 17 feet one inch to 15 feet six inches. The originally proposed freestanding garage structure has been removed to incorporate a below grade garage car lift without an above grade enclosure. This slide demonstrates the structure of side view elevation as it relates to the location of 4th Street. |
| 01:03:58.45 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | This slide demonstrates the reduced height the renovated structure compared to the existing structure at the front elevation. |
| 01:04:13.34 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The proposed rear residential structure would be 43 feet wide by 18 feet deep and includes an interior 14 foot wide interior stair. jutting out from the building front wall, approximately eight feet, four inches at all three levels along the Southern corner of the front of the structure. The second and third levels of the south wall would include bay window-like protrusions five feet wide and one foot eight inches deep. The interior stair area would be approximately seven feet taller than the majority of the structure. creating a turret-like architectural feature. The new dwelling would have an entry located at the lowest level and include two bedrooms, each with a bathroom. in one mechanical slash laundry room. This level also includes a curvilinear interior stair to the upper level. The second level would include a kitchen, dining area, living room, and one half bath. The third level is a partial floor containing a guest and study area. with one half bath. This level is approximately 14 feet wide by 17 feet deep. The main roofing area would be a solid green roof to blend into the visual tree canopy. of the surrounding area. |
| 01:05:29.46 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Based on comments received at the study session, the applicant reduced the height of the new residential structure on the turret-like architectural feature from 20 feet, 6 inches to 17 feet, 10 inches. The remaining height of the structure would not exceed 28 feet, six inches. And due to the downward slope of the lot, the roof line of the rear structure at the tallest point would be approximately six feet, six inches lower in the tallest point of the structure at the front property line. |
| 01:06:03.02 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | This section demonstrates the elevation of the proposed roof lines. compared to 4th Street, which would be a maximum of 16 feet, six inches above 4th Street. the roofline of the rear structure would be approximately 10 feet. above 4th Street. |
| 01:06:23.83 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Both structures would be in the style of modern architectural design, characterized by its emphasis on form over ornament. and appreciation of materials and structure. Materials proposed for both structures would be wood shingle siding containing warm natural tones corrugated steel, siding paneling, poured in place concrete, wood fascia to match existing and anodized windows. The detached garage car lift would have a 42-inch concrete wall on three sides. and include a wood trellis. the project requires the approval of a design review permit, lot line adjustment, and detached blowing in its permit. |
| 01:07:05.21 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The applicants conducted a neighborhood outreach on September 27th, 2021, contacting 11 neighbors Staff contacted concerned residents on September 29th, 2021, in January 20th, 2022, informing them that updated plans were available on the city's website. Staff received communications expressing continued concern regarding loss of view of the bay and parking. The slide shows the proposed structure as it relates to the adjacent structure to the south and to the bay. And these are staff's photographs. The slide showed the view to the bay and to the north. This is also staff's photographs. Since the finalization of the staff report, staff received Communications from residents demonstrating some view impact. I believe additional comments came in at the last minute, which were forwarded to the commission, which I hope you were able to take a look at. |
| 01:08:06.94 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | The structure adjacent to the project site to the south is a three level, approximately 30 foot tall residential and the renovation would be comparable in height to be adjacent structure to the north. Although the proposed project would not exceed 15 feet, six inches at the front property line, which is approximately half the height of the neighboring structure residents across the street may experience a partial loss of views of the bay. However, the project site has a substantial downward slope somewhat mitigating the height of the project Further in response to previous commission comments, the project was modified to eliminate the requirement to obtain exceptions for the project and the height was reduced. Also discussed on page 17 of the staff report per policy CD 3.1, allows for minor loss of use if necessary to protect property right. THE END OF demonstrates a comparison between the originally submitted project on the left and the modified updated project on the right. |
| 01:09:17.59 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Staff believes the findings can be made for the approval of the design review permit, detached dwelling units and lot line adjustment and recommends the Planning Commission approve the resolution to renovate and expand the existing single family structure construct a detached, below grade, garage car lift and new construction of a detached single family dwelling. Thank you, commissioners. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions and I believe the applicant is also in attendance. |
| 01:09:48.14 | Kristina Feller | Upstanding. Thank you, Cecilia. Thank you for working with this applicant and the neighborhood over the last almost year and for pulling this together in this presentation tonight and all the work that went in behind that. Um, again, just a matter of procedure here. At my last count we received Um, eight different correspondences from seven different neighbors regarding this project. And I just want to make sure that that that number jives with what you have and what community development has. So we're not missing something here. Can you confirm that? |
| 01:10:28.75 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I did not count them all up, Chair. I will rely on Roslyn for that. I was sure to forward everything to Roslyn. for the record. |
| 01:10:37.82 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. So let's go ahead, if you don't mind, and stop sharing screen for just a moment. |
| 01:10:50.12 | Kristina Feller | And Roslyn, if you can just confirm my count, I think we have eight pieces of correspondence from seven different neighbors at 107 fourth 115 fourth 111 fourth. 103, 104 for 108. And 108 and 108 and a half. |
| 01:11:10.72 | Rozalynne Thompson | That's correct. Okay. Okay. |
| 01:11:12.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, So let me ask commissioners if you have questions for staff at this time. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 01:11:23.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fallow. Bear with me. I do have a series of questions here. Cecilia, thank you for your staff report. I do have, I'm going to start with the first question. Prior to the March study session, I sent you an email requesting that you enlarge table one, which you indicated that you could not get that information for the study session, but you would get that to us, which I wanted to include all of the properties on Forest Street between Valley and Main. And so I wanted to find out what's the status of that. Cause obviously without that, it couldn't really review the findings cause that information is important to that. Do you have that tonight or when do you think you'll have that information? on expanding table one. |
| 01:12:09.80 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Commissioner, what was involved with table one? Was that a graphic or was that an FAR analysis? I don't recall what the table one was. |
| 01:12:18.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Table one is an FAR analysis and it showed some select properties on 4th street, but I was looking for all of the properties on 4th street so we could adequately compare it to the neighborhood. And I sent you an email prior to the March meeting. If you go back and look at your emails on that. |
| 01:12:39.30 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Yes, I believe I do have that, and I don't have that handy to show to you, but I can certainly forward that to you. |
| 01:12:45.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have been a large version of that table? |
| 01:12:49.04 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | OF You were asking for the block. the project block only correct commissioner? |
| 01:12:55.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:12:57.07 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Yes. |
| 01:12:57.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's not in the report that you submitted that got posted. Still, the table has not changed from when you originally submitted it. So if you have that on your computer there, if you could show that additional information, that would be awful. |
| 01:13:11.70 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I will definitely look for it. exit from my screen because my laptop tends to die out. So I'm afraid to go into any other screens. |
| 01:13:19.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Okay, so let me ask the other questions and you can look for that at some point in the next few minutes. The second one indicates the height. and if i'm i i might be misreading the plans and i couldn't see the the details on your powerpoint but the way i read this uh you indicate that the height has gone down but it the my understanding of the height from the abutters across the street uh it's the overall height of the project it isn't the height at the front property line's the overall height. And my understanding is that the previous project had a maximum height of that shed roof of 85, an elevation of 85, if you look at the drawings. And that the new pitched roof is actually at 86.9. So the height has actually gone up from what it was the last time. That last drawing you showed, had the picture on the left at a different scale than the one on the right. The overall height according to the drawings that are posted on the website is a maximum height of 86.9. Am I misreading those elevations? |
| 01:14:42.88 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe so. The elevations that are on the PowerPoint are all on one sheet, so they weren't cut and pasted. So they're all at the same scale. |
| 01:14:52.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So what is the overall, I can't read that number on your PowerPoint. Can you look on your screen and... I know that the drawing in the thing says 86.9. |
| 01:15:36.30 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | So the elevation The elevation commissioner that you may be reading is actually the elevation of the ground level And so the elevations Bye. |
| 01:15:48.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's the number you're pointing to. I can't read that. It doesn't come up great enough. But on the drawing it says 86.9. in the package. |
| 01:15:59.32 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Correct, but that's not the height of the structure. That's just the elevation above sea level. |
| 01:16:05.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand that, but the previous set of drawings that were submitted in March, that elevation was 85. And this one now says, at least in the drawings, I can't read the number there. It says 86.9. So it has not been reduced. It's been increased. |
| 01:16:17.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Come on. |
| 01:16:22.71 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I'll have to let the architect respond to that. because the Elevations show that the height of the structure has been reduced. |
| 01:16:34.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | How does it show that? I'm confused. |
| 01:16:34.72 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | All right. |
| 01:16:34.98 | Unknown | you |
| 01:16:35.03 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Mr. Boger. |
| 01:16:39.33 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | So the original elevation, the original height of the structure at the front was 17 feet and it's been reduced by approximately two feet. |
| 01:16:48.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that's because of the pitch in the roof. So if you're measuring it at the line, if you put your cursor right at that corner where it comes down to the street, that might be true, but the height of the building has gone up, is what I'm saying, because the shed roof came out to the street. And so at the street, it might be slightly lower, but the overall height is higher. I'm asking you if you can confirm that. |
| 01:17:15.48 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I say so I I'm looking at the roof pitch on the elevation at the front structure and that reads 15 feet just a little over 15 feet, even at the tallest point of that structure. |
| 01:17:30.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, again, the drawings show an elevation on the drawings that were submitted in March and they show an elevation here. And it's showing an increase. But if you could go back and look at the March drawings when you get to a break or something, that'd be helpful. Let me ask the other questions that I have. The 3D plan shows there's a trellis, which I'm confused. What is the depth of that trellis? Does that cover the whole car? Because the 3D drawing that you had, in the plan you just showed there, it looked like the trellis covers the car. But in the 3D diagram that you showed, either at the beginning or end, shows it on the back part. And I also don't think the story poles were put up for that trellis, because I couldn't find those. |
| 01:18:12.72 | Unknown | you |
| 01:18:26.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So my question is, what is that trellis? Does it not cover the cars? |
| 01:18:31.53 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, the trellis is just located at the very rear of the carport. I think, hopefully you can see this screen. |
| 01:18:37.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, what's its purpose, do you know? |
| 01:18:39.60 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | It's decorative. |
| 01:18:41.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and are there story poles for that trellis because there's a structure? |
| 01:18:47.33 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I don't believe that there are story polls for the trialists now. |
| 01:18:51.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, next question is, we had asked back at the March meeting that they do additional drawings and sections to make it clear what's going on with this garage and I don't see any additional drawings. I see revised drawings, but we wanted more details. You know why they didn't provide additional clarifications and information to make it clear what was going on with this garage |
| 01:19:21.24 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I was hoping that the exhibit, the attachment that showed the Klaus car lift would have had the detail you were looking for. Otherwise I would have to defer to the architect on more detail for that. |
| 01:19:34.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was looking for it in the 3D drawing because it's not clear from the 3D drawing that lived. I thought they would have got that on there, but I can ask that in the applicant. |
| 01:19:43.44 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Well, the below grade car lift would not be visible from the street. |
| 01:19:43.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the |
| 01:19:49.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if you draw, I thought the idea was you drive into this car lift. So you would see the structure of the car lift. How do they cover that? I don't understand. If you look at the drawing, it looks like it's concrete or something. The car lift would, you would drive, it would raise up, you'd put the car in, it would go down, you'd put another car on the highest level, but you would see the rails and the structure of the thing. Am I not understanding How'd that work? |
| 01:20:21.35 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I would have to defer to the architect on the details for the car left. |
| 01:20:25.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. The next question I had is related to this tree removal permit for this fig tree. The fig tree clearly blocks views and hasn't been maintained properly. Do you know the status of the permit from the DPW? Because I think as you say in your staff report, that tree has to be removed or whatever they have to do prior to any construction. And I think would need to know the status with DPW on that if you know where that stands are they holding a hearing or what do they do because it's in the right of |
| 01:21:00.11 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, I believe that it's been approved for removal, but I would have to defer to the architect on that. |
| 01:21:05.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And then the last question that relates to the ADU, you mentioned in the staff report that there's a 745 square foot interior accessory dwelling unit within the new structure. I thought that the ADU was going in the existing structure. You didn't mention it one way or the other in the presentation. |
| 01:21:26.86 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, if that's in the staff report, that's an error on my part. I apologize that the ADU is only located within the renovated structure. at the front of the property. |
| 01:21:37.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Those are the questions I have at the moment, Chair Feller. Thank you. |
| 01:21:42.27 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Good questions. Just to double back, Cecilia, for for any avoidance of doubt. the issue of these heights and specifically the elevation tag above sea level of the 85 versus 86.9. We still need some clarity on that. So I'm just, I'm making notes here as we go through. through this, but I think we'll want to get to the bottom of that if I could keep that front and center with you as well. Um... Commissioner Saad do you have questions of staff at this time |
| 01:22:19.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thanks, Chair Feller. Commissioner Luxembourg asked a few of the ones I was also interested in. I did have one more question of staff there from my own visual inspection. And I believe in some of the public comments that we received, there were notes around the story polls, perhaps not being completely accurate. They did look a little deflected to me in some areas. Has there been a recent check by the city on the accuracy of the, story polls so that the neighborhood can have an understanding of the visualization effects. |
| 01:22:56.96 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe that staff relies on the certification, the story poll certification, as it is signed by a licensed architect or engineer. I don't believe staff goes out to certify story polls, but I could be mistaken. I mean, I was out there and I took a look at the story but I'm not qualified to certify |
| 01:23:17.04 | Nastassya Saad | home. Sure. Do you happen to know, and I can look for it as well, when they were certified I believe there was certified |
| 01:23:26.98 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | January 12th. OK. that could be It could be a different day, but for some reason, January 12th rings a bell. |
| 01:23:36.01 | Rozalynne Thompson | Commissioner Saad, can I just, can I just add? So yes, so that is correct. That staff relies on the certification from a land surveyor or architect on the story polls. And we did receive the certification January 12th. |
| 01:23:50.48 | Nastassya Saad | of this year. Okay. Thank you, Chair Feller. That was the only question I had. |
| 01:23:55.80 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:23:59.70 | Andrew Junius | No questions at this time. |
| 01:24:01.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 01:24:04.86 | Richard Graef | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. I'm not sure. Mmm. Some of the questions They have already been. addressed but I just wanted to clarify a few things. I'm not sure. the Birch trees that were originally scheduled for the front and the landscaping. Not in the program, right? |
| 01:24:29.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:24:30.16 | Richard Graef | gone. The pampas grass that was shown, that's gone, right? |
| 01:24:35.96 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I think the pompous grass are still part of the project. Mostly it will be flax grass. |
| 01:24:44.32 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I mean, pampas grass is an invasive species. Um, Okay. And then getting back to the car lift situation. I've never been able to quite understand exactly how that works, perhaps the applicant can explain that. I think we did ask for a section through there to show how that whole thing goes together, even back when it was a garage. but there is no section really showing that or at least that I could find and I so I finding that I can't understand how that all um, uh, left. Um, configuration works. mechanically or visually. So I think we need some explanation there. I don't know if that's something you can answer, but I guess the applicants. It's decorative. Right. Um, Uh, let's see. Um... There was a mention of a green roof Um, Did that get clarified? Is that really part of this? Uh... |
| 01:26:07.31 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe that's part of the application. The applicant would like to install a live green sod roof. along the majority of the structure located at the rear. |
| 01:26:19.09 | Richard Graef | That's in the knee structure and the mat. |
| 01:26:21.79 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Thank you. |
| 01:26:21.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:26:21.89 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | RUN. |
| 01:26:21.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 01:26:22.04 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 01:26:22.39 | Richard Graef | Oh, OK. Okay. Um, And then back to the ADU, So that ADU is not figured into the, I guess it's the square footage that gets added up to the total because Uh, it's qualified somehow differently. So anyway, the extra, square footage that's being built does not, somehow or other get counted. Could you explain that, please? THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:27:03.64 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe that an ADU is administratively approved. And so it's not part of, it can't be counted towards the FAR of innovation of new construction. |
| 01:27:11.85 | Richard Graef | of invasive. Okay. It's a design, but it's an administrative And has that been approved? And that's right. |
| 01:27:26.15 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, it has not. |
| 01:27:26.48 | Richard Graef | Thank you. No, it could be. |
| 01:27:27.43 | Rozalynne Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.97 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, it does not. |
| 01:27:29.42 | Rozalynne Thompson | Uh-huh. Vice Chair Graff, I'd like to add, yeah. So the ADU is, it goes through an administrative ministerial review process as mandated by the state. |
| 01:27:39.60 | Chris Park | Yeah. |
| 01:27:43.39 | Rozalynne Thompson | Um, and, that can't be approved until this whole project is approved because it's contingent on the rest of the project be improved. |
| 01:27:53.05 | Richard Graef | Uh-huh. Thank you. |
| 01:27:54.36 | Rozalynne Thompson | I'm not sure. |
| 01:27:54.55 | Richard Graef | Thank you. I think I got it. Thank you. Um, Those are all the questions that I have right now. Um, I got answers on all of those, but at least those are the things that were on my mind. Thank you. |
| 01:28:13.33 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Graff. Cecilia, I had a couple questions. Some of these are just, again, for avoidance of doubt, if you can confirm this. When this came in front of us in March of last year, there was also the heightened design review had been triggered. And I'm noticing that that is no longer the case here. I just want you to confirm that and that there is no variance that is being sought here. |
| 01:28:41.02 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | That's correct, Chair. |
| 01:28:44.24 | Kristina Feller | And, um, You know, there was a lot of discussion in that study session about the culvert And I wanted to know if there has been any more survey work done or any confirmation of that culvert. and where it runs, whether it's on the property or not, obviously with this amount of |
| 01:29:01.02 | Olivier Touze | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:29:01.10 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:29:01.12 | Olivier Touze | you |
| 01:29:06.17 | Kristina Feller | construction foundation work, particularly on sort of the north side of the property. I just want to make sure that there's that we're aware of that and that there's no inadvertent undermining of the integrity of that culvert. |
| 01:29:20.71 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Not to my knowledge, Chair Feller. |
| 01:29:23.92 | Kristina Feller | not to your knowledge there was no survey work done or investigative work or that it's not? |
| 01:29:28.68 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | There were no issues have come up about the culvert and I have not heard anything from residents. |
| 01:29:29.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:29:35.24 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | concerned about the culprits or any comments about the culprits. |
| 01:29:39.14 | Kristina Feller | Well, they were comments from the study session that we had asked for Um, some work to be done so we could confirm where that culvert might be, um, in relation to this project. So that hasn't been done. |
| 01:29:54.36 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | That was not submitted to me. It's possible if the architect does have that information, but I did not receive anything. |
| 01:30:00.23 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. And The sod roof, is that part of the landscape plan? Have they identified proposed species for the sod roof what that is comprised of. |
| 01:30:13.63 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. |
| 01:30:16.42 | Kristina Feller | Is this a grass? a solid roof or is it succulent or is it a combination? What is the green roof? |
| 01:30:24.69 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe the applicant is proposing a sod roof. We'd like to. |
| 01:30:28.57 | Kristina Feller | Okay, both of them. Thank you. |
| 01:30:30.15 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Thank you. |
| 01:30:31.74 | Kristina Feller | it. And then in the study session, there was... There were a number of comments and there were some public comment and then commissioners following up on that regarding the privacy between neighbors. And so, um, as it relates to some of the, and how we can help them. the alignment of windows and the desire for privacy, I'm sure, for all parties involved. Has there been any study about that or any, rejigging of the work that you're aware of to, to satisfy some of those concerns? |
| 01:31:18.97 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | There is extensive landscaping on the perimeter of the property that, that aids quite a bit There's a privacy issue. very few windows. along the Southern portion in the Northern portion of the structures So that has been addressed in that sense. |
| 01:31:43.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I think it was more in the north and the east that there was some concern And I just wanted to know, because I guess just next door, north of this property, sort of above the page, let's call it, as we're all looking at the same thing here, It's a more historical building and structure with some very large windows and just wanted to be mindful of those views and the issues of privacy there. |
| 01:32:13.36 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | None of the trees along that property line are going to be removed. So they're all mature. Yeah, they're all mature trees and they will remain. |
| 01:32:21.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then were there any shadow studies done here? |
| 01:32:26.24 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, they were not. Okay. Okay. |
| 01:32:31.94 | Kristina Feller | And, um, in the In this September community outreach was that a virtual event? |
| 01:32:44.27 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe the applicants sent out a notice to 11 residents, letting them know what the project was asking for feedback and I don't believe they received much feedback, but I will let them respond to that. |
| 01:32:58.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay, fair enough. And it seemed like the original list of invitees from 2019 was double that. It was like 22. So, so where, where did half of these? invitees from the first outreach go between 2019 and 2021, do you know? |
| 01:33:22.02 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I would have to let the applicants respond to that. |
| 01:33:24.91 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then in the. In this study session, there was a very consistent theme. from neighbors and specifically neighbors right adjacent across the street, you name it, of this particular project. And the theme was the views. And, um, As we said in the study session, and I will reiterate here, nobody in Sausalito is guaranteed a completely unobstructed view. That being said, Um, I want, you know, there, I want to make sure. that the proper studies have been done from the proper perspectives from primary views of neighbors to ensure that this solution is thoughtful of that and reasonable as it relates to trying to avoid that conflict. Um, do you know if, if any of this 3d modeling is based on that? |
| 01:34:29.80 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I believe that the response that the applicants had to the commission comments and to the neighbors residents was to reduce the height of the structures. and to remove the garage. and to make it below grade. And I think that that was their response to address their concerns. they still will have some minor negative impact to their views. but it appears that it would be minor. although it's still an impact. |
| 01:35:00.42 | Kristina Feller | So the photo that I see on the right side of my screen, which is 107.4, that's a pretty significant impact. I would say. Um, And I'm assuming these are on the current story polls that are recertified in January. Earlier this month, I should say. Is that correct? |
| 01:35:28.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That is correct. These photos were received today. |
| 01:35:31.78 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. I guess, you know, the rest of the questions I have are probably best posed with the applicant, so it'll trigger more of a dialogue, but I appreciate I appreciate you confirming some of this back to me. So thank you for that. Thank you. Um... Let's see if you don't mind, we can stop sharing screen for just a moment. I would just want to ask commissioners real quickly if you have any additional just questions for clarification of staff at this time. I don't see that you do. So we'll go ahead and invite the applicant to come up here on screen. for their presentation. And so I want to welcome, is Elizabeth Miranda and Timothy Rempel here? Let's see. |
| 01:36:30.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:30.53 | Kristina Feller | Oh, there they are. Okay, very good. |
| 01:36:30.64 | Unknown | Oh, there they are. |
| 01:36:32.49 | Kristina Feller | And- |
| 01:36:32.61 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:36:33.67 | Kristina Feller | How are you? Good evening. Welcome back. |
| 01:36:36.17 | Timothy Rempel | I'm good. |
| 01:36:36.46 | Unknown | I do. |
| 01:36:37.39 | Kristina Feller | Do you need share screen capability? before we get to the end? |
| 01:36:41.86 | Timothy Rempel | uh yes we will need share screen capability but not right now i'd like to first go through |
| 01:36:45.08 | Kristina Feller | AND NOT RIGHT. |
| 01:36:47.61 | Timothy Rempel | A couple of the commissioner comments. I'd like to withhold a bunch of my time to respond after |
| 01:36:47.63 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:36:54.70 | Timothy Rempel | Our neighbors respond. Okay, so you |
| 01:36:56.19 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so forgive my interruption, you are now co-hosted, so you should be able to share screen. If Zoom team, we could get the timer up here. So our applicant can see that. So there's 15 minutes. on the clock there, hopefully you can see that. I'm going to hand the floor over to you. If you want us to stop you at any point so you can reserve time, we will interrupt you to do so. You just let us know. otherwise the clock will go. . So the floor is yours. Welcome. |
| 01:37:28.01 | Timothy Rempel | Hi, commissioners, thank you for your careful review of our project we have really tried to work hard to resolve issues with uh some of our neighbors um obviously we can't make everybody happy we started this process over two and a half years ago and we initially had the idea of raising the front building almost three feet and after meeting with neighbors, we reduced that to 18 inches. So before we ever came to the city, we've been involved in significant outreach efforts to do right by the neighborhood and to meet and communicate with them. Following our last public hearing, which was in March of last year, I believe, we received clear direction from the commission to look into the view issues, to look at neighbors concerns, to mitigate the height mass of the building, And we immediately following that meeting, sent out reach notes to the people who were, who were really having issues with this, which are not 21 people. They're really about five parties across the street. And we sent direct inquiries to these people multiple times, asking for access. to their homes. I know this was COVID. We also said, can you just let us onto your front porches? We'll take pictures from outside or barring that. Will you please take pictures? from your front yards, from your homes inside at an appropriate height from your decks, et cetera, so that we can design for this. I unfortunately we were met with a wall of silence of no response. And it's not until the last week that we were getting or two weeks ago, Mr. Mahoney said, oh, you can come see our, I invite you now to take photos, which is disingenuous. Since we needed it back in March and April and May and June and July, when we were designing this and we had silence, and we received no feedback. So I think it's an issue for the commission to talk about in general separate from this is how do you mitigate issues if used when you have no access You're not provided photographs. We did ask staff. to visit these homes and for staff to take pictures from inside the homes at the appropriate views. So again, as Commissioner Felner was talking about, a proper study of the views can be done. We weren't able to do that because we weren't provided this information and we were blocked by the neighbors to get access to this separately from this. We even went out to the expense of hiring a special lift and a drone to try to simulate the heights. When we had a drone to simulate the heights, trying to shoot pictures back towards our house from the public right of way. we had neighbors call the police on us. So we had to stop doing that. When we had an elevated camera, The neighbors called the police and said, you can't have a neighborhood elevated camera on a stick to try to see like that. Well, we've been basically trying to outreach and we've been frustrated in that. I'm going to fast forward then to some of the issues that were raised. On this screen, if you can see it, You'll notice that we are in a mix of single family residences, and multifamily and two unit duplexes. And our density is less than that across the street. which has about a 90% FAR, 4,000 square feet on 4,100 square feet of lot. That's the park and the adjacent Karen's residents. Then to the left of those Mahoney and Dufour, two single family, to the left at Murphy, that's a 30% FAR. Directly adjacent to us is a 52% FAR and over two houses to our south. 67% FAR, two residences, 4,000 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot. We are proposing 3870 square feet, which TO direct a response to Richard, Commissioner Graff, It does include in fact, the square footage of our ad we're not subtracting the square footage of our ad was included in the gross square footage here, And even with the ADU square footage, we're still at 64. percent if they are so we believe we're consistent with the two unit residences on the street in terms of our density, we're not exceeding that. IN ADDITION, We went through extensive work on our back building, the rear new proposed residence, to basically shove that down and entire, none of the view issues that I am familiar with from any of the neighbors are directed towards the new structure. They're only directed towards the our existing residents, which we're trying to raise by 18 inches. to address of Commissioner Luxembourg's question about the height. We did have a snafu and that resulted in a discrepancy in the survey, which a digital survey, which went a little haywire and it was discovered It was discovered during the certification process. And so I had to revise our elevation strings to be consistent with the survey certification. So that's what we did. The revised garage, and if we can switch to slide nine, I believe, or 10. Cecilia, I'll share, I'll stop the share. You guys can go back to it. There we go. So if you're able to pull up the screen, |
| 01:42:53.78 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Uh, Tim, what did you need me to pull up? |
| 01:42:56.40 | Timothy Rempel | This slide that shows the go back. Keep going back. |
| 01:43:09.75 | Timothy Rempel | There we go. Okay. So this proposed section shows the building at the front, the revised study and Commissioner Luxenberg, to address your question about the absolute height. It is corrected what we now say 86.7 is certified. The previous dimension string from March was incorrect due to a surveying glitch. in their data. That's all correct, but this building actually at the Ridge line to address your concern about this being taller than previous. We did reduce the by getting rid of the shed. We've reduced the front by a little over two feet, but the absolute height of this is still almost a foot lower than the previous height. So it's still lower. by over a foot of the previous height for the study. And that's reflected in the story polls also blocking less than our neighbors previously showed. Also, I would really welcome staff photographs from our neighbors residences. If you go to a slide, I believe 17, |
| 01:44:26.07 | Timothy Rempel | this slide from 107, it's actually somewhat fake. because this is done with a telephoto lens. and it shot from their residents. And again, had I been able to verify, I could show you that this section of the view, which admittedly is affected. We don't know what height it's taken of. Is it taken at three feet above the floor? Is it taken at deck level? We don't know. There's no way of verifying how much this has been blocked. I certainly would encourage all the commissioners to go to these neighbors that have this view issues with the story polls where they are and take a look for yourselves because I think that's the only fair way to us in the design to verify whether these views are significant. And I would trust your judgment going to these front yards, terraces, TO THEIR DEX AND THEIR LIVING SPACES WHERE THEY where the two neighbors in concern here say their views are being seriously affected, and to weigh Solomonic on whether these are significant enough to have us revise the building heights. I think, in general, I'll go very quickly. I don't know how much time I have remaining. |
| 01:45:42.47 | Timothy Rempel | I can't hear anything. |
| 01:45:45.28 | Kristina Feller | You have about six minutes and 40 seconds. |
| 01:45:49.11 | Timothy Rempel | Okay, so just to go very quickly through this, if we can go to the overall site plan. Go backwards. Basically what we've done to address the commission's concerns from the last meeting, we took them into the carport. We reduced an 11 foot building just to a basically a guardrail level. I am very happy. I'm not prepared today to show you how this car lift works. I've used them before. We had them approved previously on Casno Street in Sausalito. We did the first one in Sausalito about 12 years ago. They're used extensively in San Francisco, in Marin, in the East Bay. and they function very well. what we got rid of the building and we went to a much more expensive car lift which goes underground in order to open up the views from the street so when people walk by they still have this view out between our residence at 110 and our neighbor's residence at uh 112 they can see straight between these and have the have the bay view so we did that as one one uh issue um we also uh in the rear building we made made the building smaller by about 40 square feet. We pulled it two feet away from the neighbor in question that Commissioner Feller was referring to. We pulled our building further away from that. We've reduced windows on that side. We actually have a giant bay tree between our two properties and her buildings about 50 feet away. a fairly good amount of privacy there. In addition to that, on the rear building, we also push the building down at almost three feet in the height. again to absolutely make it no issue with the neighbors. Um, and we have modified the materials as the commission has requested. so that the materials in the front are sort of yin-yang. We use both materials that are used in the front building are going to be used in the rear building. So we're using the same building materials front and back. For the remodel of the front house, again, we reduced the study at the street which was the shed roof, we've reduced that to a gable. I've really tried to get that as low as possible. It might be possible to still reduce it a bit further, but we have seven foot ceilings going to eight and a half foot ceilings back down to seven. It's fairly low. As I said, we are about 12 inches lower in absolute height than the previous design on that study. And let me see whatever else we have. Is that how I can speak to it? And I think at this point, I'll pass this on to my wife. She might have some, my solicitation. |
| 01:48:30.68 | Elizabeth Miranda | Yeah. Can we go to the first slide of the building |
| 01:48:33.55 | Timothy Rempel | They should. Yes, we asked. |
| 01:48:35.77 | Elizabeth Miranda | Oh, Cecilia, I'm sorry. This is Liz Meredic. Would you mind going to the first image that shows the building elevations? |
| 01:48:41.59 | Timothy Rempel | the 3D image? |
| 01:48:42.47 | Elizabeth Miranda | read the image. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. What I wanted to say also, this view issue has been a concern from the very beginning. And I wanna convey because for some reason, I'm not for some reason, What it shows up today is seven neighbors responding. We actually began this effort and you will look in your records way before the pandemic in May of 2019. There was no concerns for people coming into people's apartments. I spoke to an associate planner and it's all in the records because it was in the, first work sessions that we had, and no neighbor would allow us. And I have been hammering, and I mean hammering, over and over again to staff, |
| 01:49:23.23 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:49:23.55 | Elizabeth Miranda | and to Cecilia to get the views of the, What are you doing? I can't see it. I'm trying to get the 3D views you want. It's okay, it's all right, it's okay. My point is that it's been impossible |
| 01:49:31.04 | Timothy Rempel | I'm trying to get the 3D views you want. It's OK. It's all right. |
| 01:49:33.92 | Olivier Touze | Um. |
| 01:49:38.83 | Elizabeth Miranda | uh, for this view issue to be really addressed if the neighbors will not allow us to come in. And then when there was issue of allowing us not to come in, staff isn't allowed to either. So. Thank you. you, how can you possibly mitigate? So from our perspective, you isn't an issue because nobody can get an opportunity to actually check it and verify it. So if this was a legal issue, what points can actually be defended? if the people who are subjecting their their views can't be verified. The thing that's really important, this is a very old building. If you look at the size of this building in relation to the entire neighborhood, It is tiny. It is small. What we are asking for is an 18-inch right raising of the front building 18 inches is practically nothing because there's already metal extensions of the heating vents sticking out of the building. Um, we are improving the property by cleaning up all the trees and the big large tree on the left side which our neighbor is happy to do it so if anything the views for the entire neighborhood will be improved. In regards to the pompous grass that was addressed earlier by one of the commissioners, that was just for illustration. We will have grasses here that are not invasive. But I want to really reiterate this. We believe we have done an incredible effort here. Understand this effort began in 2019. And no neighbor has allowed us to come in. The 22 lists went down to 11 because those were the 11 that were concerned. And only seven responded. And recently now all of a sudden everybody's responding. So there's been months that have gone by and there has been no comments. We believe the car lift, please make sure you look at the past project in CASLOW. It's a very sensitive design because it doesn't allow for anything to show up. Is there something you wanted to comment on? |
| 01:51:34.04 | Timothy Rempel | I want to leave us time to respond. |
| 01:51:35.90 | Elizabeth Miranda | Oh, okay, but I think that happens next. No. I don't know. |
| 01:51:39.49 | Kristina Feller | So you have less than a minute left. Do you want to reserve any? |
| 01:51:43.81 | Timothy Rempel | Yeah, we can reserve that minute. |
| 01:51:45.77 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so we have about 48 seconds left. So if Cecilia, if you don't mind, stop sharing screen for just a moment and might ask you to I'll go back and share it. I want to... I wanna give the commissioners the opportunity to ask any questions of the applicant that they would like to. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off? |
| 01:52:08.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Let me go to the height issue. So you're telling us that the 86.9 is correct. Your shed roof on your previous drawings that you submitted in March say 85. Are you saying that's an error? |
| 01:52:25.24 | Timothy Rempel | Yes, I'm saying, can you hear me? Yes, I'm saying that's an error. There was a, I talked to When we had the certification done by a licensed surveyor, I THINK I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO they they came into conflict with their earlier survey numbers. Two days out here, they rechecked them, and he said my machine wasn't functioning when I was doing the surveys at the street level for those exact heights. Everything down below was accurate, but at the street levels, so again, the building's here. We've adjusted at 18 inches. |
| 01:52:43.77 | Richard Graef | So. |
| 01:53:02.58 | Timothy Rempel | What I've adjusted are the dimension strings according to the verified survey data that he gave me. He gave me this data and said, now you need to adjust your numbers because my numbers were off. So in terms of absolute height, we're down by 12 inches. |
| 01:53:13.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | terms of that. So what was that number? Can you go back and correct that drawing so that we- |
| 01:53:19.90 | Timothy Rempel | I can get that for you. I don't have it quick at hand here. It would be a while to find it. I'm sorry. |
| 01:53:24.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would. Okay, I mean, I went and looked myself across the street. This stuff only blocks views whether or not the other one was in error or not. There's clearly an issue where it's 86.9. Let me ask you a question about this. If I understand that you're going to drive into this thing, so what you're going to see from the street if the drawing that you submitted is from the manufacturer, there are metal railings that it sits on and then the car goes up so you can put in the other car. And so you have this trellis that's over the thing. Does it, depending on if you have a van in there, is it going to hit that trellis? |
| 01:54:12.01 | Timothy Rempel | Now, the trellis would rise with the deck. So basically, if you're parking a car down below, You come in, you have to hold the key, The Trevelles rises up. You drive in. You get out of your car. And then the trellis, it comes back down and leaves a car parking platform where the other car is a tandem parking. So basically it rises up out of the ground with a structure holding the platform. So the concrete |
| 01:54:32.49 | Olivier Touze | So. |
| 01:54:37.32 | Timothy Rempel | driving deck lifts up in the air. It's a very expensive structure, lifts up in the air, you bark underneath it and then drop back down, |
| 01:54:46.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if you drive in and your car is on the lower level, and you go into your house and you're gonna spend an hour and you're going to come out. You're not going to put the thing back down. So your car is there. There's a car on top of that car. And this car is- |
| 01:54:54.01 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 01:55:01.21 | Timothy Rempel | No, you would put it in the film. Excuse me, you can put it back down. |
| 01:55:02.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Susan. |
| 01:55:04.82 | Timothy Rempel | It's designed to be in the down position. So you put a car in, it goes up and then it goes back down. It doesn't stay in the up position. |
| 01:55:14.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so, but then you come out to get your car and you raise this up and you have this car on top and now you have this trellis even higher. Is this trellis now blocking somebody's view to the time that that's up there? |
| 01:55:27.30 | Timothy Rempel | For the two or three minutes that is up in the air, yes it is. And then it's back down again. |
| 01:55:31.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And do you need that? Because the trellis, there were no story poles for this trellis. Do you need this trellis? What's the function of this trellis? |
| 01:55:36.70 | Timothy Rempel | The trellis is a decorative structure because the car lift itself has two six foot posts. And I thought rather than see two six foot posts on either side, it would be better if it was it was hidden for view. So I put a, I'd put a decorative trellis around it. I can take the trellis off and just leave two posts, which are two metal stanchions that are the guide rails for the lift going up and down. So I want to decorate those. |
| 01:56:01.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So. Is there a reason you haven't given us a drawing, both on the 3D shows a concrete floor for this thing, which clearly isn't what you're talking about in that 3D drawing. And we also don't have a section to see where these, because these posts are gonna block views somewhat. Those posts are actually blocking. |
| 01:56:14.89 | Timothy Rempel | Yeah. |
| 01:56:21.73 | Timothy Rempel | Those posts are not going to block any views, Commissioner Luxenberg. They're directly in front of a 90-foot spruce tree. They don't block views. They're very thin in profile. They're 4 inches by 8 inches, and they can be decorated as trellises. The issue with these, This structure is, and again, from the manufacturer, I'm happy to do a presentation showing how this car lift functions, I need a 3D video and play that for you. I didn't render it in the up position because obviously it's almost never in that position. It's there for minutes during a day. It's always in the down position. And that's the beauty of that system. |
| 01:56:58.09 | Elizabeth Miranda | Can I just make a comment? If you were to drive your car and you wanted to get in and out of the house, you wouldn't bother put it downstairs. I mean, or lower the car. You'd come in, park your car, go to the house, and then leave if you want to. put your car in the garage, so to speak, then you would use the car lift and lower the car into the basement garage essentially. So it's inefficient to use it in that way. It's meant as a garage. for you to store your car later on, not in a moment of coming in and out of the house. |
| 01:57:25.24 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. The same way with tandem parking. If your car is in the garage of your wife and yours is out front, You know, you have to address that. |
| 01:57:33.92 | Kristina Feller | Don't celebrate. |
| 01:57:34.35 | Timothy Rempel | Salad. |
| 01:57:35.27 | Kristina Feller | So do you mind just my interjection here and forgive me, Commissioner Luxenberg, I hope he'll help. |
| 01:57:39.50 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 01:57:39.53 | Unknown | No, that's fine. |
| 01:57:41.24 | Kristina Feller | help solve this clearly. there are still questions about this particular car lift. Klaus is a well-known brand. They have videos that are generic. |
| 01:57:56.14 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:57:56.38 | Kristina Feller | that we've asked about this at the last hearing and be really helpful. as part of your application or Cecilia, maybe you can provide some additional information. It may or may not be exactly the right one or the same one. It might be generic. You might be designing it with this trellis. But I do think you need to address to Commissioner Luxembourg's point. other issues that arise with Automatic or semi-automatic car lifts and that includes on the, you know, the regular maintenance of it. Usually those are up in the air for a day or so as you're doing regular maintenance or something like that. Maybe for two cars, it doesn't take that long. But I still think There are questions remaining that this commission is asking about it because we are curious and we want to solve this and we want them addressed and anything you can provide to help us would be great because I think Commissioner Luxembourg is has some fair questions here. |
| 01:58:55.73 | Elizabeth Miranda | I think just to add, I think Cecilia mentioned that there was a flyer or there was an attachment, Cecilia, that you added with your document. |
| 01:59:03.23 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Amen. |
| 01:59:03.74 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. |
| 01:59:03.76 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Yeah, I'm happy to pull up attachment eight that has a section of the Klaus car left, if that would help. |
| 01:59:04.42 | Elizabeth Miranda | I'm sorry. |
| 01:59:10.22 | Timothy Rempel | Yeah, I gave and submitted that. Thank you. |
| 01:59:12.33 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Okay, what are we doing? |
| 01:59:12.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I've seen the drawing. My issue is not with that drawing, and my issue is not with having a car lift. I don't have a problem with a car lift. But you're showing a series of, I think it's five parking spaces in total. And so if you're saying that you would park in the driveway and not use the lift, then that's taking away a parking space. So, two, I want to understand how that's going to mechanically work as far as the drawing itself. See what's actually there. The 3D drawing does not look accurate to me. You're not going to see a concrete floor like you're showing. You're going to see rails that are holding the car, correct? |
| 01:59:54.43 | Timothy Rempel | No, you're not. You're going to see exactly what I drew. It's a platform. |
| 01:59:57.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, |
| 02:00:01.10 | Timothy Rempel | If you drive your car onto that platform, and you have a concrete guardrail around it. So it's like an observation deck. And if your significant other is coming back to the house and she wants to park her car below yours, she operates the key. your car and the lift go up in the air She pulls it underneath. or the car drops back down and the car is still sitting there with the guardrail. Again, it's designed to go up and come right back down and always be in the down position. |
| 02:00:29.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'm not seeing this platform over the car. So I guess, Cecilia, why don't you bring that up Thank you. because I'm very confused now. I thought I understood how this works, and now I don't think I do. |
| 02:00:43.74 | Timothy Rempel | Actually, Cecilia's slide shows it really well. |
| 02:00:47.78 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Yeah, I'm pulling that up right now. |
| 02:00:58.98 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. |
| 02:00:59.00 | Timothy Rempel | JUST RUN. Thank you. Let me ask. |
| 02:01:01.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that's the 3D drawing and it just shows concrete. |
| 02:01:08.08 | Timothy Rempel | Right, and there's another drawing Cecilia had which showed two cars, one on top of the other, Cecilia, you showed a section. |
| 02:01:14.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, and they're sitting on orange railings of some sort. It's orange in the drawing. |
| 02:01:22.28 | Kristina Feller | That was the Klaus diagram question, yeah. |
| 02:01:24.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. |
| 02:01:31.92 | Kristina Feller | So Cecilia, if you have the Klaus diagram, |
| 02:01:35.95 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Yes, I do. I'll definitely pull that up for you. So we have. |
| 02:01:45.52 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | So we have a section here from the front. |
| 02:01:48.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that's not showing any structure to move the thing. So that's not accurate. |
| 02:01:49.12 | Timothy Rempel | That's it right there. |
| 02:01:53.08 | Timothy Rempel | So the structure is not shown in that slide, but if you see the orange trellis on either side of the upper Jeep, That extends straight down to the lower area. And so if you wanted to pull the lower car out, The that upper car and the deck is standing is sitting on would rise up in the air seven feet, allowing the low and pull the lower car with it and allow the lower car to come out. |
| 02:02:21.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What's the upper car sitting on right now in that drawer? |
| 02:02:24.39 | Timothy Rempel | It's sitting on a concrete and steel deck. |
| 02:02:28.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that's not what it looks like in the Klaus multi-parking. It looks like a red. |
| 02:02:33.46 | Timothy Rempel | It looks like a rip. |
| 02:02:34.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:02:35.03 | Timothy Rempel | It's a special kind of parking system from Klaus. I forget the name of it right now, but it does not require a rail. And the rail is required in the down position, which is what you have now in the form of concrete walls. |
| 02:02:50.57 | Elizabeth Miranda | So we're basically- I can provide that. |
| 02:02:51.11 | Timothy Rempel | I can provide that. |
| 02:02:52.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | A section of this would be helpful and of what you're actually gonna build and a 3D diagram of it would be helpful. So I'll leave that at that. Thank you. Let me move on to the other questions. So have you gotten approval to remove that fig tree that we talked about? |
| 02:03:16.97 | Elizabeth Miranda | we talked about Yes, we got that approval from public works already. Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | When are you removing that truth? |
| 02:03:23.14 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. Well, we just haven't planned to do it, but we can do it at any time. We've had the rain, so it's all a matter of- |
| 02:03:32.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a reason you haven't been maintaining that tree? Cause it obviously blocks the, |
| 02:03:37.59 | Elizabeth Miranda | The tree, well, we were... |
| 02:03:39.78 | Timothy Rempel | We haven't. We just haven't done it because we haven't gone to it. |
| 02:03:41.57 | Elizabeth Miranda | We haven't gone to. We just haven't gotten to it, but that's not it. |
| 02:03:43.88 | Timothy Rempel | Nor have any neighbors spoken to us that could you please top the tree? Because had they done that, we would have been happy to go out there and cut off branches. |
| 02:03:51.49 | Elizabeth Miranda | I actually have thinned the tree myself because it gets, and right now it's winter, so it's just a skeleton really, but that's not a problem. I can address that as soon as next week, if necessary. It's not an issue. |
| 02:04:07.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're saying this orange thing is a concrete pad? |
| 02:04:13.26 | Timothy Rempel | Now the orange thing is a steel structure That's what I thought. Yeah, but this is not the one we would be using. They have, Klaus has a number of different types of lifts. The- |
| 02:04:24.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Wait, excuse me. This is what was submitted. If you're not using this, why was it submitted? |
| 02:04:27.12 | Timothy Rempel | Okay. Maybe that's, they had two different types that I was looking at. This might be the one I sent in. This is a... This, in this case, this is a steel deck wheel guard. And so I would have to show in my rendering the upper part of the steel, the that's about eight inches high on either side of the wheels. So you would see that then on that concrete deck that you that had previously shown, you would see a small steel frame, which is encasing the perimeter of the of the car, providing sort of a guardrail for the car. |
| 02:05:02.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I'm very frustrated that what you submitted is not what you're going to build. That's not the way we do things. You've got to get your drawings to be a little bit more detailed and a little bit better because... |
| 02:05:02.40 | Timothy Rempel | I'm not. |
| 02:05:14.47 | Kristina Feller | So can I interject here again? Cause we're, I wanna make sure that we're making progress. it's pretty clear at this point that the issue regarding the Klaus lift whatever version you're going to use that what was submitted is not what would actually be in place at your property based on what we're looking at right now. So let's take that off the screen. I'm not sure. |
| 02:05:37.44 | Timothy Rempel | It would be this structure could be this structure. |
| 02:05:39.49 | Kristina Feller | Hold on, hold on. Additional information. is required to help us understand |
| 02:05:43.04 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:05:43.17 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:05:43.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:46.43 | Kristina Feller | what it would actually look like and what you're proposing. And I think that that's the conversation we're having here. I think that we don't have to continue going around and around in a circle about it. This is a real question mark that we need to address. in moving forward if we could. |
| 02:06:02.21 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:06:05.24 | Kristina Feller | So, Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any other questions right now? |
| 02:06:09.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Now the last thing is the staff report indicates you're providing five parking spaces as part of the projects. Two in the driveway, one in the carport, and two in the car lift. If what you just said a few minutes ago that if you're going for a few minutes, that you're really not going to use the lift, then you really practically don't have, it's like three tandem spaces, not. because if you're using the driveway as a staging area, I understand how you would do it if you only went in for a few minutes. So this driveway really has to be left open. It's not really a parking space because it's either that or in the garage unless you have company over and then you're using them all. But generally, we're not going to generally have five usable spaces. I'm understanding that. |
| 02:06:56.65 | Timothy Rempel | You're understanding correctly. You would probably generally have four usable spaces, and you'd have two that can be tucked in in front of the current driveway, the way we park right now. You could still park an additional car or two that way. But yes, four usable spaces at all times. |
| 02:07:10.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One. Thank you. |
| 02:07:11.38 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:07:11.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. Chair Feller, that's what I have at the moment. |
| 02:07:15.04 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you very much, Commissioner Luxembourg, for being so thorough with your questions. Commissioner Junius, do you have questions for the applicant? |
| 02:07:26.48 | Andrew Junius | Um, no real questions. I guess I'm uh... I think that's one comment and observation. looking forward to public comment as I'm curious as to what the response is. I, AMB. very troubled by the lack of input of the neighbors now claiming view obstruction and if they did not cooperate in a timely fashion that bothers me greatly But I'll wait for public comment. No questions for the applicant at this time. |
| 02:07:51.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:07:55.57 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I don't know if I've misheard, so I just wanna ask a clarifying question here. Did you say that you are including the ADU in your square footage, your total square footage. I'm just want to make sure that we're all looking at the correct, um, FAR and total square footage of what we are considering. COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY I thought I... |
| 02:08:22.24 | Timothy Rempel | Oh, yeah. Thank you. I believe anyway, when we talk about this, the front building being 1900 square feet, that certainly includes the 750 square feet approximately of the ADU. Yeah. I don't have the table in front of me, the slides I was relying on. |
| 02:08:38.93 | Unknown | That's okay. I do have it. |
| 02:08:39.28 | Timothy Rempel | Okay. have it. Yes, the gross square footage for the property of approximately 3,800 square feet includes the 750 square feet. And even with that, we are still below the allowable FAR. We're at 64%. So if we took that off, we'd be down at 50% or something like that if we didn't include it. |
| 02:08:58.11 | Elizabeth Miranda | And as you know, you know, you don't need to include the ADU square footage in the FAR and the FAR cartilage. But as Tim said, we have added it. So we're actually much under. |
| 02:09:02.57 | Timothy Rempel | IF THEY ARE. |
| 02:09:08.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I am aware of that. I just wanna make sure from the staff report in that table, it does highlight that the ADU is not counted. So it is looking at about a 50% proposed So I just more for clarification. clarification for myself and Maybe anybody who's listening. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU So thank you for clarifying. THERE. And then Just if I had looked from the study session originally, I mean, as a member of PIAC, you know, we're proponents of ADUs and, and additional housing. I'm just curious, since it wasn't in the original plan, Thank you. Um, What inspired that that addition, it seemed like a departure from the original study session that we had. I was just curious if you can comment there. |
| 02:09:58.86 | Timothy Rempel | Actually I can. Originally we wanted to have it in there and we were advised by the planners who were staff planners at the time that we'd have an easier go with the planning commission. We didn't have it in there. And so we didn't put it in, but we want it there. And when the issue of the heightened design view came up and there's no way we can handle five parking spaces on this property, then it seemed an obvious thing to show what our intentions, what we wanted to do from the get go and have the ability to have an ADU down there. So our original intention, three and a half years ago was to put an ADU and then we were advised by the staff planners at the time TO BE BETTER IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT IN THE that we followed their advice. |
| 02:10:39.87 | Elizabeth Miranda | And they actually said it would be just as easy for you to apply for it later because it's an, it's an, it's a, It's a easy approval, it's a over the counter administrative. So it's always been our intent. I mean, we've always been a big proponent of mixed use and we don't believe in living in gigantic homes. So this is actually quite modest. So we're happy to. make the lower unit an ADU. |
| 02:11:01.37 | Nastassya Saad | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF Thank you. I was just curious. So thank you for clarifying that statement as well. I don't have any other questions, Chair Feller, |
| 02:11:10.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Voice Chair Graf. |
| 02:11:14.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:11:14.35 | Richard Graef | um Thank you, Chair Feller. most of the questions that I've had, have been answered. I now understand how the left. how the lift works. And yeah, it's great, clever. Um, So... uh the only question, well, a couple of minor questions. It came up a little earlier. what is the intent for the green roof. on the proposed lower structure |
| 02:11:58.71 | Elizabeth Miranda | THE END OF THE END OF THE Originally we were thinking of Saab, but obviously with this, all this water issues and in our projects, we try to always do it sustainably. So we'll do something in no appropriate, very low water maintenance, probably if we can get away from cactus and it won't be blown away by the wind. something that's gonna be very water tolerant. I mean, not water, water. Thank you. |
| 02:12:23.65 | Richard Graef | draw a dollar. |
| 02:12:24.31 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. Yeah, yeah, throughout time. |
| 02:12:25.98 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:12:27.19 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. |
| 02:12:27.24 | Richard Graef | Um, And then I noticed, um, |
| 02:12:28.70 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. |
| 02:12:32.17 | Richard Graef | in the elevations and the perspective views of the front of the project from 4th Street. Um, the difference between the latest iteration and the previous one, with the garage um there's been a significant change in materials And and I couldn't quite figure out what was different but it's somehow the elevation looks different like the width of the study or whatever that room is. looks different or there were more windows to the left of it. I don't have that drawing in front of me right now, but I can find it. |
| 02:13:19.81 | Timothy Rempel | I can really quickly, what I did is I took the mass from the corner |
| 02:13:20.76 | Richard Graef | I'll just say quickly what I |
| 02:13:24.99 | Timothy Rempel | which are the corner of the building, which makes the building look larger. And by shifting it in about four feet from the corner and letting the old roof wrap around on two sides, it mitigates also visually lowers the mass. So not only did we create a gable on it, but by shifting that mass over towards the center of the building, it looks like it's a smaller volume. And it is. |
| 02:13:42.71 | Richard Graef | It is. All right, great. That explains that. So... Okay. Well, the only... I don't have any further questions. |
| 02:13:59.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you very much. I still had a couple questions. I just wanted to put in front of you and see if you could help me with these. The first is sort of back to the culverts. This is an issue that came up, if you recall, in our study session in last March. And I wanted to know if you were able to do any more investigative work about where it is the integrity of it and if any of your, even if it's not directly on your property, if it's adjacent or abutting it, of course, you know, those are older culverts and we're concerned about any disruption to them from unstable earth or anything like that as you excavate. Could you speak to that? |
| 02:14:48.00 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. I have not done enough additional research from the stuff I did originally, but from what I know from engineering, it runs in a straight line. under our neighbor's property, where the clean out is at the street, and runs down to Third Street, and then it jogs over to Main and goes straight down, and it exits at the bottom of Main. So it is our foundations also, if you were to look at our building, for the rear building again, on the back side view, we pulled our foundation wall six feet back. So with that six plus seven, we're 13, we're probably 15 feet away. the closest we would ever be, if it was right on the property line. And according to my point, it's hard to know without doing some sort of engineering train. But I think we're at least 15 feet, probably 15 to 18 feet away from it. And it's, I believe it's a six foot diameter brick culvert. |
| 02:15:42.08 | Kristina Feller | And you're not concerned about it sort of where you would be placing the cloud system? |
| 02:15:47.23 | Timothy Rempel | I'm... No, no, not at all. We're doing teleco piers, which are fairly light. way above the structure. We're not doing piers down into rock, God forbid is probably 50 feet down. We have to do a different sort of support structure for engineering. |
| 02:16:05.08 | Kristina Feller | Sure. And are you proposing any new fencing? |
| 02:16:11.19 | Elizabeth Miranda | If it's necessary for the I mean, as Cecilia mentioned, there's so many trees on this property. that a lot of it is the privacy is really maintained, If it's necessary for Karen Sheldon at the bottom, she's on main, we could put a fence there. I don't know. |
| 02:16:30.08 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. I'm not asking about anyone in particular. I'm just curious if that's part of what your design is, is if there's any fencing included in the landscape plan. I didn't see any. |
| 02:16:41.58 | Timothy Rempel | Yeah, we know we have fencing, existing fencing at the east on the west, actually on the north towards the adjacent main revs. It's actually a very beautiful open canopy down below and we weren't planning on putting a fence. If it was necessary for our neighbors, we would of course be willing to partake in putting some sort of decorative fence that provides privacy if we're question. And the same thing on the south, our neighbors on the south, actually their first habitable space is on top of residents. So there's no, the only issues of privacy are they're looking down into us. We're looking into what is a rear yard, which is frankly never used because they all each have decks that are starting 15 feet above the ground. |
| 02:17:24.41 | Kristina Feller | I'm curious if any of the new plantings that you're proposing are considered to be deer resistant because if you're not fenced then That's why I'm just asking what it's ultimately gonna look like. That's what we're here to figure out and consider together here. Um, The other thing that, you know, we had mentioned in the study session, and this was actually particular to, at the time it was a sod roof, but let's just call it a green roof now. Is that when you're. When you're providing renderings. or perspectives or anything like that to us, or of course members of the public review this information as well. that they're as realistic as possible, particular to any protrusions out of the roof. You're going to have, Vents and fans and potentially chimneys or or the like. When you... We want to understand what that looks like, particularly when you're talking about a living roof, a green roof. because all of a sudden that can be diminished quickly if we're not careful with all those different penetrations. I would really feel a little more comfortable if you took a look at that. I understand the intent of what you're trying to do there. but the reality of it always looks different you know, when you actually build it. That would be helpful. |
| 02:18:48.42 | Timothy Rempel | Yeah, in the green roof, we have necessity of a single two-inch vent. And that's it all the bathroom kitchen at the other end, they go up through the higher, the other roof, which is not a green roof. And in the green roof, we have the need because of the bathroom down below to have a single two inch vent going through that. |
| 02:19:03.22 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. Um, okay. And then can you just very quickly just touch on the finishes that you're proposing because again, at the study session. one of the comments you were getting from the commission was that the intent of these two structures on one property is that they don't have competing or completely different architectural vocabulary that they don't have to be twins, but they should look intentional as on the same property. So can you just very quickly touch on what your design is? |
| 02:19:43.83 | Timothy Rempel | Sure. We don't have, Cecile, you don't have any of the 3D rendering showing the front and back building, I suppose, but THE IDEA IS THAT THE |
| 02:19:52.42 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | I think I do, Tim. Are they the ones that you submitted? |
| 02:19:55.82 | Timothy Rempel | Sure, if you can pull one up, that'd be great. But to briefly talk to that, obviously concrete is the base of any building. So we are going to need concrete on the rear building to support the structure. And we're pulling that into the car lift and having the car lift itself and the terrace it's on be a, be a concrete structure, board form, something attractive. The base of the front building is poured place concrete, board form, we have to repair that. We're gonna continue that. And the existing building is a very beautiful grooved cedar siding. |
| 02:20:29.01 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:20:29.51 | Chris Park | Thank you. |
| 02:20:29.53 | Timothy Rempel | And I've been able to locate some up in Vancouver, Canada that will, we can make them to match. And the idea is to use that as the primary body component of the building to use the cedar. And this is the old rendering. These are old renderings. They show the stucco, not the new materials. So there, let's stop right there. Go back one. Back one? OK. Oh, back one. There we go, right there. So this is... This is a, actually this is the previous version. It's not the right rendering. I'd have to bring up another one, but this shows the materials. So this would show like a board form concrete underneath as a base for the carport, as a base for the study structure. The wood shingles to the left of that, on the back, black fleetwood windows, and then a low roof similar to the tar and gravel roof we have now. we intend to use these same materials that is the corrugated gray zectique as we've used this before it's a medium gray it's not galvalum which is shiny this is a medium dark medium gray it's a darker color so it is not doesn't have that shiny features that Galvalume has, and it looks more classic. And then with the wood shingles together, they form sort of a complimentary tonality. And if we use that on both buildings with, you know, certain elements like the projections on the back building, we'll have the corrugated metal, the round stair. is also intended to use that because we can actually have the corrugations turn corners so the corrugation could actually follow the form of the curve. |
| 02:22:12.27 | Kristina Feller | So, Thank you. This is helpful, but just real quick to confirm that, um, I'm understanding what I'm looking at where you have the pompous grass, That is a formed concrete. And above that is a painted metal corrugated |
| 02:22:24.18 | Unknown | Yeah. and above the board. |
| 02:22:32.52 | Kristina Feller | uh, siding. |
| 02:22:34.27 | Timothy Rempel | Yes, kind of our it's a kind of painted or kind of powder coated metal. Yeah |
| 02:22:38.34 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And the shingles are only on what, in essence, is to the left of that, between the structure and the stairs. |
| 02:22:49.53 | Timothy Rempel | Well, it's not only to the left. It's to the left to the right. The main body of the building, a rectangle, is all shingled. And only the study volume here in the front is metal. We're only seeing right now, primarily the study volume. So you don't see the rest of the building, but the entire, that entire building volume is wood. And only this volume here of this study is in metal. So we're seeing- |
| 02:23:14.42 | Elizabeth Miranda | Where the two windows are. |
| 02:23:16.41 | Timothy Rempel | Yes. |
| 02:23:16.43 | Elizabeth Miranda | Yes. You should have a 3D rendering, because it was supplied in our submittal. |
| 02:23:18.84 | Timothy Rempel | HE'S NOT INJURED. |
| 02:23:22.25 | Kristina Feller | Well, I understand that I'm just asking about the finishes, the 3D rendering is not going to tell me what the finishes are. I need your help to just confirm it, not just for my benefit, but for the benefit of the public or anybody watching from home. I just want to make sure that we don't forget this part of your application because finishes are important too. And you hadn't touched on it in your presentation, so I wanted to give you a chance to to help us understand what you were envisioning. |
| 02:23:52.47 | Elizabeth Miranda | So just to reiterate, so we are using the same materials on the front and in the rear building. It's the wood siding that Tim mentioned, which exists currently in the building and we're having it remade, the corrugated metal and then the concrete. And so everything now is the same. It's the same palette. |
| 02:24:11.05 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Great, thank you very much. Thank you, Cecilia, for sharing your screen there. Commissioners, do you have any other questions at this time for the applicant before I open this up to public comment? Wow. |
| 02:24:29.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a quick one, Chair Feller. You just said that you submitted 3D. We saw a draw. We saw one in the set of plans, we didn't see 3D. You're on. So you submitted them? |
| 02:24:42.67 | Timothy Rempel | We submitted a set of eight or nine 3D drawings, but they didn't make it into the presentation. I understand probably for brevity. I'm looking for them right now on my computer. I might be able to share them later |
| 02:24:47.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and the administration. |
| 02:24:53.71 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:24:53.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you submitted them with your revised drawings? |
| 02:24:57.42 | Timothy Rempel | 3D rendering showing the materials in both buildings. |
| 02:25:00.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that in your drawing set? The drawing set that we saw did not have those in there? It should have had them in there. |
| 02:25:00.06 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:25:06.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Did you look at what was online that worked? The problem is what you have and what we have is not the same. |
| 02:25:07.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:07.50 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:25:07.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:07.53 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:25:07.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:07.67 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:25:07.70 | Unknown | you |
| 02:25:15.70 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:25:15.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:25:15.97 | Timothy Rempel | Let me look for those renderings. I'll see. |
| 02:25:18.06 | Elizabeth Miranda | Thank you. |
| 02:25:18.30 | Kristina Feller | You have those. Okay. Um, we, we will need to rectify that because I mean, even some of the renderings, I think saw as the cover page on the drawings, Commissioner Luxembourg, were different than what we saw tonight. So we have to reconcile that a little bit. And I would just like to ask staff the calculation on the ADU, JADU, whatever kind of ADU it is, should not be part of the FAR. So those numbers would need to be corrected anyway. |
| 02:25:50.92 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | No, the ADU was not part of the FAR. Without the ADU, the total FAR is 0.51. With the ADU, it's 0.61. So there are footnotes that separate that out in the staff report. |
| 02:26:01.45 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:26:01.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:26:05.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. Um, Assuming there are no additional questions for the applicant at this time from commissioners, we can continue to ask as we hear some public comment as well. |
| 02:26:18.49 | Timothy Rempel | I do have 3D rendering that he wanted to see. |
| 02:26:18.90 | Kristina Feller | I do. You've got it. Um, At this time, I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment. And to do so, if you could raise your hand in the Zoom application, or hit star nine if you're calling in from a cell phone. So I have a five hands up here at the moment so I'm going to go in the order that I see it on my screen. That may be different than what you see on yours, but do not worry. I will make sure everyone that has their hands up has a chance to speak. Um, So the first person I see is Mr. Olivier Touze. Hopefully I've pronounced your name correctly. Welcome this evening if you could kindly unmute. and share your screen confirm your name for the record if you don't mind and you have three minutes for public comments |
| 02:27:13.30 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Olivier Touze. I live at 106 4th Street. I hope you can all hear me well. Okay, thank you. So I just wanted to comment on the statement about the neighbors. I was very surprised to hear that. I had an email exchange with Liz by end of September where basically Liz indicated me that she was asking me to have someone come to my place to take some photo. a person named Laurel and and then put me in contact with her. So I changed email with Laurel, and three days later, Laurel came in, took some photo from my balcony, Okay? And she mentioned that she was doing some home sitting for you guys, I guess. And that's it. I've never heard about this project since then. So I think we exchanged email within two, three days. There was no delay and there was no issue for my part on letting you take some photo from my residence. I wanted just to clarify that point because I, It seems like all the neighbors are very hostile, according to what you were saying. And... I want to clarify that. |
| 02:28:51.07 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:28:51.11 | Olivier Touze | You were. |
| 02:28:51.50 | Timothy Rempel | No, you were, but we are. |
| 02:28:52.88 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. |
| 02:28:52.95 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 02:28:52.96 | Kristina Feller | Hold on. This is public comment. If you could mute yourself. This is for the public. |
| 02:28:59.24 | Olivier Touze | No, that's fine. This is just a comment I wanted to clarify that there is not a wall of hostility for me. From all neighbors. Thank you for giving me the chance to talk. |
| 02:29:12.84 | Kristina Feller | Appreciate you being here this night and thank you for your comments this evening. The next hand I see raised is I just see the name Karen. So if you could kindly unmute and share your screen and confirm your name for the record, if you don't mind, and you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:29:32.35 | Karen Shelton | Sure. It's not letting me turn the video on. Oh, there it is. So it's Karen Shelton, and I'm at 411 Main Street. And I was the one that just brought up the concern about privacy because my backyard face is the side yard. and the new building THAT LIS AND TIMMER PUTT I'm proposing would be looking directly into my backyard. Um, So, I have a photo that I can share with you if the commissioners are interested to see what I'm going to be looking at. just so I have clarification. WITH THE NEW DISTRICT, revised plan if you'd like me to share that I can do that. |
| 02:30:11.15 | Kristina Feller | This is just your time for public comment. If you need to share your screen, Zoom team, if you could allow, Ms. Shelton to do so. |
| 02:30:19.87 | Karen Shelton | That would be great, yeah. It just would help me kind of |
| 02:30:23.01 | Kristina Feller | You can do that now. |
| 02:30:24.46 | Karen Shelton | Okay. you Thanks. So let's see. you |
| 02:30:34.42 | Karen Shelton | So this is the concern at the base of the Bay tree. So the top of the Bay tree is great for privacy in terms of the second and third levels. of the design of the home. It will create privacy between our homes. It's just this bottom piece that I'm, I'm. HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT because I don't know what the new design, I couldn't tell by the plans, if there's going to be windows looking directly into my backyard. So this is just the visual on that because this is the story poll representing the new structure. So that's just my concern is how we're going to address that. the privacy right there. |
| 02:31:14.56 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much, Ms. Shelton, for sharing that with us. |
| 02:31:17.47 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 02:31:17.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:17.90 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 02:31:19.35 | Kristina Feller | Um, We're also happy to take public comment in writing. If you'd like to issue that to the city, you're more than welcome to do that. So thank you for- |
| 02:31:27.25 | Karen Shelton | Thank you for being here. |
| 02:31:27.88 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:31:27.89 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. I did do that with Cecilia and I provided pictures and I did it back in March, but none of it made it. into the into the meeting. So that's why I wanted to show it to you, because it just hasn't been brought up yet. |
| 02:31:39.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for being here. |
| 02:31:39.99 | Karen Shelton | Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 02:31:44.04 | Kristina Feller | The next hand I see raised is Nicholas Duford. Welcome this evening. Hopefully I've pronounced your last name correctly. Um, You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:31:57.64 | Nick Dufour | Yeah, hey, thank you. Yeah, my name is Nick Dufour. I live at 107 4th Street. I bought the house in 2013. I oppose this project based on scale, view impacts, and parking effects. My house is directly in line, and part of the applicant's house is directly in line with my narrow bay view and Angel Island views. You guys saw the photos from my patio in front yard. Due to the height increases at the front and the back of the house and the extension at the back of it is going to result in completely losing my view from my patio in the front half of my yard and I get partial loss of day view from my living room foyer and master bedroom. I spent a lot of time researching the municipal code those Those are all described as primary views. I also opposed the plans that depict large burst trees in the front. I'm not sure if those are supposed to be there or not. They're definitely on the latest plans. I kind of feel the same way about cypress trees around the side. You know, I've documented these view impacts extensively with photos to many people on this call uh photos at the march meeting uh mr luxembourg visited my house other people have visited my house uh tim and liz have had those photos for months and months and months i'm happy to have people come visit to provide pictures. You know, this new design actually makes the view impacts a little bit worse because it moves the, appears to move the back of the house out more and up more. You can see it in that photo that was shown from my house. You know, I had just a few corrections and information I wanted to add from the conversation that's happened so far. I would say that the neighborhood outreach characterization from the applicants is basically completely false. I would encourage you guys to read the comment letter that I sent. That gives a really good synopsis and summary of exactly what happened. I'm happy to answer any questions on it. I'm happy to sit here and read it if you give me more time. I'm frustrated by continued errors in these figures and the staff report you know omissions of comments errors in the far table like Mr. Luxenburne brought up errors in the figures where they don't depict things correctly the story polls I don't know how they could have been certified as is because they're falling apart they don't have foot increments the foot increments is also Thank you. things correctly the story calls I don't know how they could have been certified as is because they're falling apart they don't have foot increments the foot increments is also an element of the municipal code the culvert issue was brought up many times before by my neighbor it's well documented I have no idea how this can be considered an internal ADU my last 20 seconds I'll just'll just say, you know, this is a huge, expansive project. It goes from, you know, less than 1,000 square feet to nearly 4,000, like four times. I mean, they're obviously trying to use ADU loophole to make this as big and maximize profitability, and they can definitely modify their design to meet goals, add housing, and not impact neighbors. So thank you for your time. |
| 02:35:00.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. DuFort. Thank you for your written comment and your comments this evening. The next member of the public I see with their hand raised is Annie Tsang. Welcome this evening. If you can confirm your name on the record, Yeah. |
| 02:35:15.77 | Annie Sang | Hi, Annie Sang. Can you hear me? |
| 02:35:17.97 | Kristina Feller | I can hear you. |
| 02:35:18.59 | Annie Sang | Thank you. Great, okay. So thank you for the presentation and for the opportunity for public comments. And I know most of the conversation has centered around the original structure that is being applied to be heightened and then some of the subsequent considerations around the view. My perspective and interest in this is from The lower elevation, I'm at 115 Third Street. AND SO, I'm looking at the the ADA or the new structure that would abut the back of my lot and I guess I have just some questions and then maybe seeking some clarifications as well so AND I THINK IT'S A First, and maybe I'll just, I'll review the questions. The first one is just confirmation around the trees and the intention for the trees of the lot to maintain privacy. I know that there was some discussion around the trees in general and I was wondering about that specific border between my laws and the I was also wondering if a shadow study has been done and what the impact to light would be with this plan. I THINK I'M GOING TO BE Let's see what else I also was interested in understanding how there what the plans are to contain the runoff that or potential runoff that could come from the higher elevation to. my loss. And then I think just a general inquiry is around the duration and the sort of impact of the construction and noise, especially during work from home time as I've spent the pandemic working from my house correctly. So thank you. |
| 02:37:01.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments and your questions. Thank you for being here. The next hand I see raised is Martina Quinn. Ms. Quinn, welcome this evening. If you can confirm your name on the record and the floor is yours. |
| 02:37:21.61 | Martina Quinn | Hi, thanks Chair. My name is Martina Quinn. Myself and my husband Patrick Murphy have lived across the street at 111 4th Street since 1995. We've raised two kids here and we're deeply embedded in this community. Well, I would say that we support the development of the lot at 1 10 fourth. We're really opposed to any increase in the roof height because it impacts our primary views from our porch and from our master bedroom. And you have a picture to that effect in in the package. These views really contribute hugely to our enjoyment of our home and to its value. When we built our own house back in 1998, the city required that we not increase the height of the property so as not to interfere with the views of any of our neighbors. And we're asking that you insist that the developers in this case follow the same municipal code. Looking at the story polls, it's actually even been impossible to really tell what what issues might mitigate a view because the story polls did not have any foot markers. So we couldn't even tell if we were asked what would make a difference. Interesting as well, the plans don't depict any chimneys or vents that could also interfere with views. Maybe that's because there aren't any, but there certainly aren't any in the plan. So we're not able to consider that if they haven't been shown. I WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT I We're also really concerned about the parking issue. The street is very densely impacted because there's a parking only on one side of the street on Ford street, and there's only seven legal spots. so while the um the the car lift checks the box in terms of parking for the property, it actually doesn't have any practical purpose because we would foresee that exactly what Commissioner Luxembourg predicted would be that it would be a tandem issue and cars are going to end up on the street, impacting the overall parking issue for everybody. I'm We are also concerned about the ADU issue being in the mix here because that really avoids heightened design review. This property should be subjected to heightened design review. And in that case, we want to be really sure that the city holds a project to the highest possible scrutiny to ensure that the impact on our neighborhood is minimal. Look, we really believe that our parties can be satisfied in this particular situation. The developers could submit a plan that meets the profit goals, satisfies the city's density requirements, but doesn't steal primary views from neighbors across the street. This is a tight community. We're all going to be here long after they've sold and moved on, and we just want to keep our views after they're gone. Very, very quickly in terms of the neighborhood outreach, we have communications with Liz as recently as October, inviting her to come visit at her request. She was actually out of the country, didn't respond except to offer to send a photographer. We had already provided pictures ad nauseam. They're in all of the staff packets going back to the beginning of the original design review. And we provided them from for the original date in December when this meeting was originally scheduled. So all of the communications are on the record. So I would agree with my neighbor, Nick, that it is a mischaracterization of us to say that there is a wall that's simply not true. |
| 02:40:58.62 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Quinn. Okay, the next speaker I see is Ms. Kathleen Anderson. Welcome this evening. if you can confirm your name and your address. |
| 02:41:15.92 | Kathleen Andreessen | I'm Kathleen Andreessen. I'm here with my husband, Dan. We're at 108 4th Street. We concur with our neighbors that we've been involved in opposing this project from the get go. The new proposal especially raises a lot of red flags for us at 108 and Halforth Street. I mean, from... What we've even heard tonight, the windows facing our direction would absolutely be right looking into the windows of our downstairs. and we're concerned about that, along with everything else the neighbors have had to say. |
| 02:41:57.85 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. |
| 02:41:59.34 | Kathleen Andreessen | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:42:00.11 | Kristina Feller | Any other comments? at this time. Okay. Thank you so much for being here. |
| 02:42:03.15 | Kathleen Andreessen | All right. I'm going to go to the next one. |
| 02:42:03.88 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 02:42:07.29 | Kristina Feller | And thank you for your comments, both written and verbal this evening, as with many of the other speakers. Um, Chris Park, you are next for public comment. If you could unmute. confirm your name and you've got three minutes. |
| 02:42:24.47 | Chris Park | Hi, I'm Chris Park. Me along with my wife, Lisa Lee, who's actually with our right now. We are the owners of 154th Street. We've been living here since 2019. I just wanted to comment on a couple of things, reinforcing some of what our neighbors have said. specifically around the inconsistencies I've and witnessed and voiced with regards to the inconsistency with the findings that the city design review procedures would require right about the scale about the infringing on the ridge line, the silhouette above ridge line, as well as the requirements. So I heightened design review Martina and Patrick talked too. But also like to start off with, I think the mischaracterization of what he said, she said, uh, has been dragging us dragging on in this discussion for about a year, as far as I remember. I think it's really As far as I'm concerned, we've actually gotten creative. My wife got pregnant last time we were talking about this a year ago. In addition to providing photos, offered an opportunity to do a live Zoom with the applicants here. to show them the view from our deck, right? And Lily Whelan, the director back then, I think, And Cecilia, I had the email up. You guys are all on the thread where we offer this as as a way to really come to a compromise because it's in everyone's best interest on the street to see developments happen on 110th. I think the problem has been when you continue to mischaracterize what someone else said and it becomes a thing about, well, no, you didn't do this, but no, yes, I did it. it's a cyclical thing and haven't been able to make progress. I just wanna hit on that point because that bothers me to see that no progress is made, even though people are trying to find alternative ways to get around problems. that are in part due to COVID and in part due to just having to coordinate a lot of different people's time. So, Anyways, going back to the main point about the inconsistencies, I still see the general scale of the structures and buildings in this neighborhood. No one has a car lift that accommodates five cars. No one has a three unit construction crammed into the current lot size. or comparable lot size. we still see impact above the ridge line. which is a finding that the city's design review procedures require pursuant to section 1054.050. And really worried about the parking situation because even throughout this process, we've had our parking situation obstructed, not by the applicant themselves, but folks that are working on the project currently. and we have evidence to show that it does. And yeah, the site does obstruct these from surrounding properties, And does present potential hazards to public safety in terms of how it would affect vehicle traffic. So for those reasons, we think the heightened plan review is definitely required. Thank you. |
| 02:45:29.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. I do not see any more hands from the public at this time. Um, so I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. and bring the discussion points back up to our virtual dais. I believe, however, the applicant had less than a minute and I did not write down how many how many seconds below the minute, but I believe it was like 50 seconds left. If there's anything they would like to use that time for, I will allow that. |
| 02:46:06.96 | Rozalynne Thompson | Chair Feller, 48 seconds. Yeah. |
| 02:46:10.20 | Kristina Feller | I knew you would know. I knew you would know. So Mr. Rumpel, if you would like to use your remaining 48 seconds, for any final comment or conclusion. Zoom team, if we can unmute Mr. Rempel and allow him to use that. I will allow that. |
| 02:46:32.24 | Elizabeth Miranda | I'm just going to comment very quickly. I think Cecilia can support this. Emails were sent in regards to Mr. Olivia. Yes, you did in fact grant us opportunity to photograph and we have that, thank you. |
| 02:46:43.63 | Olivier Touze | Thank you. |
| 02:46:45.39 | Elizabeth Miranda | You were not hostile. In regards to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Dufort and Park, you have the emails of September, and I have the correspondence |
| 02:46:54.21 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 02:46:54.33 | Elizabeth Miranda | And Cecilia can verify she didn't get responses either. And until recently there's like a flood in the last week. The most important thing is that we can't use other people's photographs to verify the view. It has to be done by staff or somebody else. I'll yield the rest of my time for later, Tim, if you want to respond. |
| 02:47:10.75 | Timothy Rempel | Okay, yeah, just, you know, one last, a few last things. We would like nothing more than to be able to give a camera to our neighbors and say, can you take pictures at five feet above your deck, five feet here, whatever, and have a set of nice photos that come back that aren't Zoom photos and work with those. I asked Nicholas Dufour today, hey, can I come onto your front porch and he was in his front yard and take a photo to see what this view is like, absolutely not. I mean, so we're getting we're getting different phrases here. I'd like nothing more than for staff to document this photos and let us use those in design. |
| 02:47:41.77 | Elizabeth Miranda | And we don't have to do it. We're more than happy to hire somebody or staff can do it. So we can be out of the picture. Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 02:47:49.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Okay, let's pull the report. the debate and discussion back up to our virtual dais here. I see, Mr. Dufour does have his hand up, but unfortunately, public comment is already closed at this time. Your written comments, your oral comments are noted. noted here. Um, So let's see who would like to start off our discussion. Commissioner Junius, do you wanna start us off? |
| 02:48:25.32 | Andrew Junius | Well, thank you, Chair Feller. As the young person on the commission here in terms of longevity, uh, I wasn't around back in March when you had the study section and this is a I'm not sure if we're going to A lot to absorb here in one sitting. that we're going to be So I'm just gonna say a few things. I do think it's up that he said, she said stuff as unfortunate, it's extremely difficult, I think for the public to understand I think it's easy for the public to understand how extremely difficult it is for us to, you know, referee, that kind of stuff. It's really... I've seen this quite a bit in my career. and it's hard to resolve. So I think I'm just gonna move on from that. I'll be really honest with the commission and I'm proud. This is the only comment I can say from a, a scale standpoint, I think the lot, frankly, is big enough for these two structures. I think the structures seem to be, you know, appropriately designed scale wise. There are some very large, homes on this block. specifically the home directly adjacent to the project site at 108. or uh, his towers over the existing home and would simply, and still seems like it'd be very big. in comparison. I'm a little frustrated with the, you know, the conversation regarding the scale of this building, the height of this building, Everybody seems to want to have something done here, what looks to me like an extremely approvable project seems to be extraordinarily controversial. I know people don't like change. um, but I'd be fine with this project. |
| 02:49:55.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 02:49:59.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fowler. This project, obviously something has to happen with this site. This project needs to occur. And I think everyone, both the applicant and their neighbors, all agree on that. I think that the issue has to do with view impacts. I think that the pitched roof is creating a problem. I think either the pitch could come down or it could be a flat roof. There are alternatives to the roof design uh which would solve the problem i don't think i agree with commissioner juniors i don't think having three units on this site is the issue i think it's the roof line that is a problem and that could be. I think that the level of drawings is not sufficient for what we need. I think I did this in sort of looking at the design review findings. The roof relates to design review finding number four. The level of drawings with regard to mechanical equipment, chimneys, all of that kind of thing. calls into question number eight so i think they have to put on whatever wherever the chimneys are and whatever protrusions through the loop need to be there uh that would be helpful uh i think that the the fig tree clearly has been approved to go i think that that approval should be included with the application it seems that we're not getting all the information that others are that is getting submitted i think that's a problem uh personally i have an issue with the corrugated metal i don't think the corrugated metal concept is consistent with the neighborhood i think the if the roof comes down uh and the materials were a little bit different they would be consistent with the neighborhood but i think the corrugated metal would seem out of place uh with the project but again we're we're not here to design it Thank you. consistent with the neighborhood but i think the corrugated metal would seem out of place uh with the project but again we're not here to design it but i think that is an inconsistency for finding number two but i do believe that uh with slightly improvements to the drawings and some minor changes to the the height that a solution can come out of this that everybody could live with. So I think we just need those things to occur. I don't think we're going to get this resolved this evening. I think more work has to be done. Those are my thoughts at the moment, Chair Cullen. |
| 02:52:21.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Saad, |
| 02:52:26.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I'm leaning with Commissioner Luxembourg. I think there's a few missing pieces here that makes it hard to go through all the findings out the door. So I think the explanation in the car lift was helpful but not matching up makes it difficult to move forward to really get a full sense of the scope. I am not sure in terms of expectation for the lower elevation neighbor and I'm sorry because I wrote down her name I can't |
| 02:53:05.83 | Kristina Feller | Is that Ms. Shelton? |
| 02:53:06.97 | Nastassya Saad | I think so, yes. Thank you, Chair Feller. That was a good question as well, seeing the written comment earlier and now understanding from that photo, it does... It does allow me to visualize. her point and I don't know what the solution is there, but I think that one really does need to be taken into consideration by the applicant only because it's It seems very impactful. It's not necessarily a view concern, although I hear what all of the, the neighborhood is saying. They don't disagree, but from a privacy standpoint, that one seems quite... quite in potentially impactful. So I would really encourage the applicant to work with all the neighbors, directly with her to address that concern. and maybe provide some more clarity back to us. at a later date. I have no issue with the ADU. I think the ADU is a great idea. I also agree with Commissioner Junius. I think from the lot, the way the two parcels are, basically one unusable, I think a lot adjustment makes a lot of sense for the, for the use of this property. But I do also think that that pitched roof, it could be lowered. I think there are some design changes that could help address some of what the neighbors are saying and ultimately let this a couple move forward with their project. So I would encourage that as well. Um, I I think we're all understanding now, you know, the FAR, that is ADU is not included. So the staff report is correct. regardless of the comment made by the applicant in the presentation so that 0.51 is what we're working with Um, And And that's where I am right now. Thank you, Chair Peller. |
| 02:55:00.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much. Vice Chair Graf. |
| 02:55:04.16 | Richard Graef | Um, Well, I think most of the points have been covered. my feeling about the the project is that, uh, um, Actually, I think it's appropriate for the most part. Um, Bye. I, I do like the materials. I wouldn't quarrel with the corrugations. I think that this The design is leaning. towards something a little more contemporary, which I think, you know, Uh... Yeah. fine. Um, I am concerned. still I think with most of the neighbors about some of the view impacts And I think that that has not been worked out and that I, I'm I'm anticipating a continuance, you know, because there are just too many unanswered. issues. Um, But basically the design materials I think are Thank you. I like them. I'm satisfied about how they the parking lift works. um, But I still think parking is an issue and I don't know where a solution is going to come from that. It's a very tight obviously. Um... The project is proposing to add more more living space and therefore more cars. And if it was just that, then I think the project might Um, might not be okay because of the park. I'm just not quite sure where what the reality is there. But I personally am still feeling a little concerned about about that and I understand the effort on the part of the applicant to try to solve that. And So anyway, um... So yes, I think the view issue is probably the big one now. I think that's solvable. I think that somehow we're in there. There's a, there's a solution to, bring that roof line down a little bit. Um, preserve as much of the view as possible but I think with some modifications, this is an approvable project. In fact, I think it's a I think it's a pretty good use of the of the lot. Let's see if we can get it fixed. |
| 02:57:55.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. Um, I wanted to start my just sort of the my conversation about this first on the ADU or the JADU Um, Just for clarification to the public and everyone listening, Um, These are fully allowed and endorsed by the state. So that is why it's a ministerial approval. It is not a planning commission approval. that this property owner has every right to build or incorporate an ADU, a JDADU or any other type of ADU, affordable or not. on their property. So I wanna just state that so we can take that piece of it off the table here. because that's really not up for debate. Now that doesn't mean that they can build absolutely anything that they want, but they can build it that unit Um, uh, as part of their development here. So let's take that off the table here for just a moment. Um, I am. Really. disappointed with some of the comments about the discourse between neighbors. Uh, this, quickly can erode neighborhoods This commission is not the police of who gets along in the neighborhood or not. We really don't enjoy getting pulled into those kinds of conversations. Um, This is a buildable. Um, Property. clearly what's sitting there right now is respectfully derelict and something needs to be done there no matter what. So I'm hoping that that's not a discussion point or a bono contention either. This commission is also the stewards of preserving views. We've been entrusted with views and treaties as part of our remit as a legislative body here. So, or legislative mandate. So views are really important to us. And until we can get some sort of accuracy and certainty about what it is that may or may not be impacting views we're going to have to continue this no matter what. I'll reiterate that no owner, no property owner is guaranteed an unobstructed view. Nobody, not me as a citizen or anyone else here. on on this zoom But, um, impacts to views do have to be analyzed. And so I'm hoping that staff can. assist. in collecting the proper information for us to be able to make that analysis or, um, asking us to get involved with you to help that happen. Because... this project needs to go forward in some way. but it can't go forward with the wrong information or a lack of information. Um, Specific to the applicant and the application for this design review, I'm also a little troubled that the, some of the same exact comments that were bones of contention in the study session are the same comments we're making now. And so those study sessions are so beneficial to the applicant and they are also very, very beneficial to us and members of the public in the neighborhood. But, that input that we're giving you It's very heartfelt. We want your project to be successful. Um, you know, we've asked for information to come back and it's still not there. And so I would really appeal to the applicant to take some of the questions and some of the queries that we have because until we can satisfy some of that, this, you know, it, it, We really do want this to be a successful, project and a successful endeavor that that might require compromises by many parties but but something needs to be done here. So I... I cannot make the findings this evening. I don't think we have the documentation to even know what it is we would be approving and to be able to make the findings no matter what to the point of some of the finishes I, I do not. The corrugated metal does not appeal to me either. And maybe it's the combination of the corrugated metal and the cast concrete, which is a very, harsh, sort of brutalistic, type of Aesthetic. And again, I'm not here to design this from the dais any more than anybody else. But remember that this is a neighborhood, it borders a historic overlay district. I'm not asking or hoping or thinking anyone is going to mimic something historic here, but Just be aware of the surroundings and think about that. The landscape plan I think needs a little bit more a definition. Um, and I think it's important to walk the property to figure out, you know, if you are um, creating more privacy or taking privacy away from your neighbors, And finally, this culvert if we can just sort of have some documentation to ensure, you know, this is probably a fairly brittle Um, old culvert and I would hate to think that anything that's happening on this site, even if the culvert does not exist on the site. would in any way undermine it. there's enough of a question there that I would be concerned and let's just try to satisfy that. um, So I would entertain any more discussion from any of the commissioners If we can provide any more direction, we're happy to. And I'd also like to hear from staff to make sure that they understand some of the comments that we've made here so they can help this applicant in moving forward. |
| 03:04:31.57 | Kristina Feller | And at this point, I'll entertain a motion |
| 03:04:35.04 | Andrew Junius | Move to continue. Thank you. |
| 03:04:38.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. principal planner, oh, sorry, there you are. |
| 03:04:44.22 | Heidi | Could you please take the roll call? Thank you, Chair Feller. Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 03:04:51.73 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 03:04:52.39 | Heidi | COMMISSIONER, DO YOU |
| 03:04:53.03 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:04:53.83 | Andrew Junius | Do we need to have a date? |
| 03:04:55.21 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, I was just going to ask, is this for a date certain or a date uncertain? |
| 03:04:59.75 | Andrew Junius | I'd prefer a date certain. a couple of months out or something. I mean, give them plenty of time |
| 03:05:07.16 | Kristina Feller | I think that we should ask the applicant that because there's quite a lot of work that needs to be done here. So if staff can help, us unmute Mr. Rumpel. Um, so we can ask him if he would like a date certain. or we can continue it to a date uncertain. Um, we are, we can work around your schedule. |
| 03:05:33.38 | Timothy Rempel | I would prefer a date certain, not longer than, say, two months from here. I do not see this as an extensive redesign. We have to look at the roof of the front building, deal with height issues, all this, a series of other things. I'm very happy to come in for a presentation at your next hearing about the car lift. Just information about the car lift if you have time for that. |
| 03:05:55.33 | Kristina Feller | So Director Scoble, if we can look at the schedule or you can help us navigate the schedule, I think we're probably talking early April. |
| 03:06:05.44 | Heidi | Yeah, so two months out, the first meeting would be April 6th, and then we have April 20th. |
| 03:06:11.53 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So if either one of those, Mr. Rempel, you would prefer And again, if we get closer to that date and deadlines, and you're not prepared, then we can still |
| 03:06:17.07 | Olivier Touze | Bye. |
| 03:06:17.09 | Heidi | Bye. |
| 03:06:17.10 | Diane Marando | Bye. |
| 03:06:17.25 | Heidi | Bye. |
| 03:06:24.75 | Kristina Feller | and move it to another future meeting. We can continue at our hearing. |
| 03:06:32.41 | Timothy Rempel | Sorry, Commissioner Hill. April 6th would work fine. |
| 03:06:35.50 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:06:36.46 | Andrew Junius | So I'd amend my motion to continue to April 6th. |
| 03:06:40.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and the second came from? |
| 03:06:43.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | from me, second, I second that amendment. |
| 03:06:44.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay, thank you. |
| 03:06:47.24 | Heidi | Thank you. Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:06:52.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:06:53.52 | Heidi | Commissioner Genius? |
| 03:06:54.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:06:55.29 | Heidi | Vice Chair Graff. Yes. Chair Feller. Yeah. |
| 03:06:58.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:07:00.07 | Heidi | THANK YOU. |
| 03:07:01.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. concludes. Item 6B. Commissioners. |
| 03:07:08.76 | Cecilia Jaroslawski | Uh... |
| 03:07:10.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Cecilia. Thank you very much. Good evening. Good to see you. Okay. So item number seven, adjournment. I moved to adjourn. |
| 03:07:19.10 | Andrew Junius | Second. I. |
| 03:07:22.51 | Kristina Feller | Hi. |
| 03:07:23.00 | Andrew Junius | Hi, Lauren. |
| 03:07:24.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:07:24.92 | Andrew Junius | See you next time team. |
| 03:07:25.08 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 03:07:25.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:07:25.40 | Richard Graef | Right. |
| 03:07:26.46 | Heidi | Have a great evening. Thanks, guys. Good night. |
| 03:07:27.89 | Nastassya Saad | I'll see you next time. |
| 03:07:28.15 | Andrew Junius | Thanks, everybody. Good time. |
| 03:07:28.85 | Richard Graef | Bye. Bye-bye. I haven't done this. for the matter? |
| 03:07:33.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:07:34.56 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 03:07:40.68 | Martina Quinn | I can't get the stupid code. M-O-R-S-E, capital O-B-E. |
| 03:07:55.89 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. Thank you. |