(people speaking indistinctly)
- Good afternoon, everyone.
It is Thursday, July 23rd at four o'clock.
I am Michael Cass,
the Acting Community and Economic Development Director,
and I will be serving
as the Zoning Administrator this afternoon.
I'd like to start by reading a civility statement,
which is included at the beginning of the agenda.
So as your appointed Governing Body,
we will treat each other and the public
with patience, civility, and courtesy
as a model of the same behavior
we wish to reflect in Martinez
for the conduct of all city business
and community participation.
This includes respect for everyone's First Amendment Right
to voice their opinion on matters
within the City's subject matter jurisdiction,
even if that opinion is different from our own.
The decisions made
will be for the benefit of the Martinez community
and not for personal gain.
I'd next like to go into public comment.
This is for public comment
for items that are not on today's agenda.
Non-agenda public comment is limited to matters
which are within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the Zoning Administrator,
and which are not action items
listed elsewhere on the agenda.
If you'd like to make a public comment,
please use the Raise Your Hand feature
at the bottom of the screen.
Okay.
Hearing none, we'll now move on
to the first public hearing item,
which is the Variance request for 9 West Hayward Court.
Salmana, if I could please have a presentation.
- Thank you, Michael. I'm just going to share my screen.
All right. Good afternoon, everyone.
Today I will be presenting a request for a Variance
at 9 West Hayward Court.
The project is located in the R-10 Zoning District,
which is a single-family residential zoning district.
The general plan designation is residential low.
The lot size for this property is 8,000 square feet.
And currently there is
an existing single-family residence on the lot.
This lot is surrounded by other single-family residences.
This project initially came in as a Code Enforcement case,
at which time staff identified that the fence did not comply
with the Martinez Municipal Code fence height standards.
The Applicant then submitted a request
for retroactive Variance
to allow a five-foot tall fence and gate
within the front yard and public right-of-way.
The gate connects to the existing six-foot fence
along the side property line,
and is comprised of a two-by-four mesh wire
and black steel posts.
Here's a picture of the gate.
So the Martinez Municipal Code limits fence height
to three feet, six inches
within 50 feet of a street intersection,
so within a required front yard.
This fence was built also within the public right-of-way
along the cul-de-sac line,
which is about 13 feet, 6 inches
past the front property line
and is contiguous with the front yard.
The general intent
of a reduced fence height in the front yard
is to preserve a clear sight-distance area.
This fence only exceeds the maximum height by 1.5 feet,
and the fence is see-through
and does not obstruct visibility.
The Applicant has cited the need for the fence
to maintain privacy and security on their property.
So the project was routed to engineering, building,
the police department,
and then Contra Costa County Fire District.
The Engineering Division has no immediate concerns
with the fence encroachment in the public right-of-way,
and has requested a number of conditions of approval
to ensure the fence does not interfere
with future public improvements or obstruct visibility.
So these are that the fence, gate, landscaping,
any materials placed within or adjacent to the enclosed area
shall not obstruct required sight lines
or interfere with the visibility of motorists,
bicyclists, et cetera.
And then the City reserves the right
to request modification or removal of the fence
if we find that it's a sight line visibility safety hazard.
Secondly, approval of this Variance authorizes
only the requested deviation
from the applicable fence height standard
and does not grant the Property Owner ownership
or permanent right to occupy the public right-of-way.
And then lastly, the fence and gate shall remain subordinate
to the City's use and control of the public right-of-way.
Upon written notice from the City,
the Property Owner shall remove, relocate,
or modify the fence and gate
at the Property Owner's sole expense, if necessary,
to accommodate roadway, sidewalk,
drainage, utility, accessibility, frontage, maintenance,
or other public improvements.
We've also received conditions of approval
from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,
which is requiring the Property Owner
to install a Knox Box at the gate
so that the fire department has access to it,
in case of an emergency, has access to the property.
And then staff has placed other conditions of approval:
one regarding fence maintenance,
and one regarding vegetation and stored materials,
just to ensure that visibility isn't obstructed
by the gate or things around the gate.
We've also received a public comment from a neighbor
that cited concerns with sight-line visibility
if the fence is permitted to remain,
and that the materials and placement is not harmonious
with the existing neighborhood character.
And this was provided to the Zoning Administrator
prior to the meeting.
So the findings on the screen are required to be made
in order to approve the project,
and staff believes that
with the conditions of approval imposed on this project,
the findings can affirmatively be made.
The staff is recommending
that the Zoning Administrator conduct a public hearing
and adopt Resolution No. 26-16,
approving a retroactive Variance from Kirk Jennings
for a five-foot tall fence and gate
in the front yard and public right-of-way
where the maximum fence height permitted
is three feet, six inches,
located at 9 West Hayward Court
in the R-10 One Family Residential District zoning district,
Assessor's Parcel No. 162-190-008.
And I'm available to answer any questions.
- Okay. Thank you very much, Salmana.
I don't have any questions at this point,
but I will likely circle back with you.
I do want to reflect on the record that I did review
the additional public comment that was forwarded to me
after the Staff Report and agenda were published.
So I have read through that.
I'd now like to offer the ability
for the Applicant to make a presentation.
- Sorry, I think that's the wrong Kirk.
And I don't see my applicant here actually.
- So I'll ask the question,
because we're not seeing the Applicant in attendance:
If there's somebody here who is representing the Applicant,
please use the Raise Your Hand feature
at the bottom of the screen so we know who to promote.
Okay. I'm seeing none.
We'll now open it up to members of the public.
Any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item,
please use the Raise Your Hand feature
located at the bottom of your screen.
Okay.
We do have one hand.
Ronnie, please go ahead and make a public comment.
- [Ronnie] Yeah, I live at 5 West Hayward Court,
and the fence is hideous looking.
They tried to skirt the law by putting up a tall fence.
They didn't get a permit, and now they want to be revised.
It's ugly, and it doesn't fit our neighborhood,
and it lowers my property values.
So, they got wire around the whole yard.
It's not just the gate.
It's the wire around the whole thing too.
The five-foot tall-- - Stakes.
- [Ronnie] And green stakes.
So my question is:
can I put gates up in front of my house then?
- Okay. I appreciate the comment, Ronnie.
Just for context, you said you're at 5 West Hayward Court?
- Yes. - Can you orient me
where that is in relationship to the subject property?
- Next door. - Next door. Okay.
So if I'm facing it, you're to the right then, correct?
- Left. No, I'm to the left.
I'm in the corner of the court.
- Okay.
Okay. Thank you for that. - Mm-hmm.
- Okay. Any other comments you'd like to make, Ronnie?
- [Ronnie] I just don't want the fence.
- Understood. - Yeah.
I mean, it's going to lower our property values.
It makes it look like we live in a prison.
If they want to put up something and get permits
that fits the neighborhood and makes it look nice,
that's a different story, but that's hideous.
- Okay. Well, thank you, Ronnie.
Appreciate your comments.
- [Ronnie] Okay.
- Are there any other members of the public
who wish to speak on this item?
Okay. I'm hearing none.
Now want to just give one more opportunity.
If the Applicant wishes to make any comments,
please use the Raise Your Hand feature
at the bottom of the screen.
- I think he's here now,
so I've gone ahead and allowed him to speak.
- Hello? - Hi.
- [Kirk] Hi, Kirk Jennings.
- Good, you can now make a presentation on the item
or make any comments that you wish to make.
- [Kirk] We were unable to get into
the Zoom launch on the computer.
We've been struggling with that. So what did I miss?
- So Salmana made a presentation
consistent with the Staff Report that was published.
- [Kirk] Uh-huh.
- She then also indicated
there was an additional public comment that was received
after the Staff Report was published, which she went over.
And then we had a public comment
from Ronnie, the next-door neighbor,
in opposition of the request.
So you can make any comment
that you wish to make at this time.
- I'm sorry I missed what Salmana had to say.
We just... We need the fence for security purposes.
All the events and police incident reports
that have gone on for two years,
they just require this fence and the security gate.
So, it's a very nice-looking fence, and it doesn't,
as the City noted in their photographs,
it doesn't preclude any vision, sight,
with the fire department saying there's no problem,
and we're going to get the Knox lock.
And PG&E and the City noting
that there's other six-foot fences
right up close to the street or the court.
We feel that we've done a nice job,
and we just really need that fence and gate
for our security.
- Okay.
- [Kirk] We're glad it's been permitted.
- Well, a decision has not been made yet.
I do have a couple questions for you.
- Oh. Okay, yeah. - The gate--
- [Ronnie] I wish I could have heard everything.
- Okay.
I do have a couple questions. - Go ahead.
- The vehicular gate, do you normally leave it open, closed?
I do know that it moves inward rather than outward,
so it moves inward into the driveway.
How is that normally kept?
- [Ronnie] My habit has been to open the gate at 6:00 AM
and close before I go to bed each evening,
so 10-ish, 11-ish is when I close the gate.
And the same thing happens again.
When we go away on a vacation, we've kept the gate closed.
- Okay. And--
- [Ronnie] But daily, that's the way it's been kept.
- And you open it manually, correct?
So you actually open it.
There's no electricity or anything to power it
or no intention to do that?
- No, that's correct. - Okay.
- [Ronnie] Just a simple couple of gate latches
that go into the concrete, and then one at the top,
like a normal gate you'd have on your backyard.
- Okay.
Second question that I have:
there also is a low wood post-style fence
that runs along towards the edge of pavement.
Is that intended to remain,
or is that intended to be removed
since there's, in essence, two fences
immediately adjacent to one another?
- [Ronnie] Well, that little guy has been there
since probably the '50s when the house was built in 1956.
So what I did
was make sure that I was certainly on my property.
So at this point, I don't plan on removing it, no.
Mm-mm. - Okay. And I wanna clarify.
The fence is on public property, not on private property,
based on the Staff Report that was received?
Okay.
- It's not-- - So, I don't--
- Any other final comments that you wish to make on this?
- [Ronnie] Yeah, I don't believe
the little tiny fence is on public property.
- Sorry, the tiny fence is as well as the new fence.
- And how are they measuring? - How did they measure that?
How did the staff measure that?
- So the architectural plans that were provided
indicated that the fence was outside of the property line
and along the cul-de-sac line.
So there's 13.5 feet between where the fence is placed
and where the property line is,
and then Engineering also confirmed
based on those architectural drawings that were submitted.
- [Ronnie] 13.5 feet, huh?
- So any other final comments that you wish to make?
- [Female Participant] I don't think that's right.
- [Ronnie] Yeah, I don't know if that's right or not,
so no, I don't wish to make any final comments.
- Okay.
So I'm now going to close the public portion of this item,
and I'm prepared to deliberate.
This one I'm definitely torn on.
I don't take kindly when people do work without permits
and then ask for permission after the fact.
And that's something that I want to discourage
from happening in the future.
Saying that,
I found myself largely agreeing
with the comments that were made
by staff associated with this item
in that really the intention of height requirements
of structures in this zoning district
is to ensure that there's transparency
and to avoid potential conflicts
when vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists
are in, entering, exiting, or near the property.
And given the transparent nature of the fencing,
I can make the findings
as outlined by staff in the attached Resolution.
And so I'm prepared to adopt the Resolution No. 26-16,
approving the retroactive Variance
subject to conditions of approval as recommended by staff
with a few additional addendums.
First, I want to make sure that the record reflects
that this was a Code Enforcement case.
And so I'll be adding a whereas clause
reflecting the Code Enforcement complaint
associated with this item.
Secondly, I will be adding a condition of approval
because the property, excuse me,
because the fence encroaches onto public property
that a retroactive encroachment of permit
and encroachment agreement
are required from the Engineering Division.
And I'd like to specify that that happens within 90 days.
Third, I am prepared to add a condition of approval
that specifies that if 50% or more of the fence
is proposed to be repaired or replaced,
then it needs to be shifted back onto private property
and outside of the public right-of-way.
Next, for condition of approval number 10,
which talks about the ability that the City can remove
and have the Applicant be responsible, excuse me,
having the Applicant be responsible
for removal of the fence upon written notice,
I would like to add that failure of the Applicant
to remove the fence in a timely manner
may result in the City removing the fence
at the Applicant's expense
plus a 25% administrative surcharge.
And finally, that small fencing
that's in front of the new fence,
requesting that that be removed
within 60 days from the approval date.
That's it.
My decision can be appealed
by anyone wishing to appeal my decision
to the Planning Commission.
That needs to be done within 10 days.
If you're interested in doing so, please contact Salmana
and she can walk you through the process.
Thank you.
I next am ready to move on
to item number two on today's agenda,
which is for 1170 Arnold Drive.
Imanol, if I could please have a Staff Report.
- Thank you. And let me just share my screen.
Okay.
Thank you, Zoning Administrator Michael Cass.
Hello, everyone. My name's Imanol Tovar.
I'm the assistant-- - Imanol, if you wouldn't mind
speaking up a little bit louder.
I'm having trouble hearing you.
- Is this better? Okay.
I will be giving a presentation
for 1170 Arnold Drive, Suite 110,
and this is for a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales.
A little bit about this property.
1170 Arnold Drive consists of two buildings.
Highlighted in red is Suite 110.
The zoning for this district is neighborhood commercial.
And the existing use is a restaurant
as well as the surrounding land uses
being retail and restaurants.
So the proposed project, like I mentioned,
is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales.
The proposed business is going to be a liquor store
operating alongside a takeout food
proposed Krispy Krunchy Chicken.
This will all be within the Suite 110,
and they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit
and also an ABC Type 21 Alcohol License.
And shown here is the existing floor plan on the left side
and the proposed floor plan on the right side.
So for census tract and ABC,
there is a certain amount of alcohol licenses
that are permitted per census tract.
So highlighted in red and outlined in black
is the census tract
that is where 1170 Arnold Drive is located at.
In the census tract,
it allows up to one offsite alcohol license.
We currently have three off-sale licenses,
and those are going to be Walmart, Lucky, and Liquor Lane.
None of them are within the same shopping center
as 1170 Arnold Drive.
So because there is an excess
of ABC licenses within that census tract,
we would have to make the positive findings
of public convenience or necessity
for the off-sale liquor license to be approved.
And those findings are found in the Staff Report.
In addition, staff's findings for this is that
the proposed project will offer Martinez residents
a wide range of beer, wine, and liquor.
And the liquor store and takeout restaurant will provide
a service different from the existing grocery stores,
like Lucky and Walmart
that sell liquor for offsite consumption.
So this will be slightly different,
providing different services.
Some notable recommendations.
Some notable recommended conditions of approval
are listed here.
These were provided
and discussed with the police department.
So this is coming from them
in relation just to handling alcohol.
So with that,
the recommendation is to conduct a public hearing
and adopt Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 26-17,
approving a request from Raji and Tirath Sahota
to consider a Conditional Use Permit
for alcohol sales of distilled spirits,
and for a new liquor store with a takeout restaurant
at 1170 Arnold Drive, Suite 110.
And with that, I can answer any questions.
- Great. Thank you very much, Imanol.
Just want to confirm, because they are serving food,
but the food that they're serving is to-go as well.
There's no dining interior to the space, correct?
- That is correct.
No dine-in seating, just takeout food.
- Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
I can have the Applicant make a presentation.
You can unmute yourself and go ahead.
- [Raji] Hi, good afternoon. My name is Raji.
And I'm the Applicant along with my husband.
And we have been long-time residents of Martinez,
and we have multiple stores within the East Bay,
and so we just wanted to do something
here in our own community.
We have owned Subways in,
actually, let's put it this way,
the Subway downtown Martinez, but that was many years ago.
And so now we just want to
bring something else into our community
since we've been here for 30 years or so,
and our kids grew up here,
and now they're coming back home after schooling and stuff.
So we just wanna do a little something
in our own neighborhood.
- Great. Well, thank you, Raji.
Is that the rest of your presentation?
- [Raji] Well, my presentation is.
That was just an introduction of myself and my family.
But now we want to open up a small liquor store
that's going to carry a wide variety of high-end liquor,
beer, wine, spirits, et cetera.
And then we're going to open up a small takeout restaurant.
It's a Krispy Krunchy Chicken franchise,
and it's all going to be takeout.
Food will be prepared fresh in store
and then sold right there inside the store
for just takeout purposes only.
And we'll have snack items and cold beverages such as sodas
for people not purchasing the liquor products.
- Thank you.
Any other comments you wanted to make?
- [Raji] We would just greatly like this opportunity
to be able to open here in our own neighborhood.
And we would do our best to be good business owners
and do our part in safety and cleanliness
and providing good customer service
to our customers and our community.
- And then question for you. - Yes.
- For Krispy Krunchy Chicken is,
you mentioned that you own some businesses
in other communities.
Are they the same franchise? - Yes. We do have--
- Same franchise in other communities?
- [Raji] Yes.
- Are you comfortable sharing one or more
other close locations that you do own and manage?
- [Raji] Yes. We have one in Antioch off of Fitzuren Road.
And it does very well there.
And it's a Southern-style chicken franchise,
they've been up and growing.
They have other stores but nothing close here.
I think they have one in Bay Point or something.
And then we have our location in Antioch.
- Okay. Okay.
- [Raji] And that's also within a liquor store.
And it's also takeout.
- And is that customary?
I apologize, I hadn't heard of this chain
before the item was coming forward.
Is that customary for all of the chains?
- [Raji] Mostly. Majority of them are.
- Yes. - Okay.
Okay. Any other comments?
And then I do have a couple more questions.
- [Raji] No, I think we're good.
- Okay.
So in looking at the floor plan,
and Imanol showed that as part of his presentation,
it shows that you're relocating the door,
so it will be on a different facade.
And then he showed sheet A1.0,
but A2.0, read my mind, Imanol,
is on the screen now.
And it's showing a large refrigeration area
that's being put right along the window frontage.
- [Raji] Mm-hmm.
- So I just wanted to chat to see
how locked in the floor plan is,
because I do have some concerns
with having those improvements obstruct the window
and not having transparency into the store.
Is there feasibility
of working with the architect and planning staff
to rework the interior floor plan
so that the transparency isn't impacted
the way the current proposal is?
- [Raji] The reason for the blockage,
because we have our coolers on one side of that wall,
so pretty much, that's why we're relocating the door
because the door used to be on the side
that we're going to close off now.
And we're going to put the door on the front now,
which is the front that you see
where they have the front door relocated to.
- Yeah. - So that's the only reason.
And there will be a portion at the top of the coolers
that's going to be transparent,
but I think a lot of it, even for safety and security,
it's good to have one side of the windows blocked off
because there's just way too many windows.
- Okay, and what are you planning to do
to modify the exterior facade, if anything, rather,
because the windows are majority being blocked?
- [Raji] We're planning to just black them out.
We could put some kind of art or some kind of pictures
if that's what you guys would require,
but we were just thinking of blocking them out.
- Okay. And then-- - Just on that side.
- And then for clarification,
there's the service area that's shown.
- [Raji] Mm-hmm.
- For the service area,
is there food preparation that's happening there?
Is it sales? What is that actually?
- [Raji] That's the sales part of it.
And the food prep happens behind in the kitchen area.
- Which is not shown on the screen, correct?
- [Raji] Which is shown right back here.
So behind where your cursor is.
- Okay. - Yeah, right there.
That's the kitchen area right there.
- Okay. So I'm going to ask the question.
Could you relocate the refrigeration area
to be where the service area is
and have the service area be under the windows instead?
- [Raji] No, it won't work for the layout
because we've been working with our architect
who's been kind of planning this all out
with the size of the space,
and he said there's no way we can move those there.
We've already asked.
- Okay.
That's something I would want to dive into further.
So, I do have concerns with blocking the windows.
So I appreciate that, though.
I do want to now open it up to members of the public.
Anyone who wishes to speak on this item
can do so at this time.
If you'd like to do so,
please use the Raise Your Hand feature
at the bottom of the screen.
Okay.
Great, thank you so much. No comments.
I will now close the public comment portion of the meeting
and deliberate.
So Raji, thank you so much for the information
and your interest in opening a business,
and Martinez is very excited about that,
and particularly since you also live here,
and that's what we love to see.
In terms of the actual request before me today
for the Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales,
I found myself agreeing with staff
and the conclusions that were made,
and can support that application.
There are a couple of conditions of approval
that I'd like to make some very minor changes with.
Namely condition number six,
I'd want to reference also the Property Owner
and Business Owner as part of the indemnification.
And then condition number nine, change planning manager
to assistant community and economic development director.
And same thing for condition 10.
I'd also, in the approval of the resolution
as drafted with those amendments,
what I'd also like to do is add a condition of approval
for the Applicant to work with staff
on potential revisions to the floor plan
to minimize the obstruction of the window;
and that if the windows continued to need to be obstructed,
then design review is required,
which can be done at a staff level for any changes
that will affect the exterior of the building,
even if they are interior to the space.
So we can work with you, Raji, on some solutions
to address the concerns that we talked about today.
- Okay. Thank you. - Okay.
Other than that, no additional items that I want to add.
And anyone can appeal my decision
by filing an appeal within 10 days from today.
If you're interested in appealing the decision,
please contact Imanol
and he can walk you through that process.
- Thank you. - Thank you so much, Raji.
And we're glad to have you
as part of the Martinez community.
- Thank you. - Thank you.
- Now ready to move on to condition of approval, excuse me,
application number three,
which is the project at 103 Escobar Street.
Imanol, if I could have a presentation, please?
- Yes. Thank you.
This is going to be a presentation for 103 Escobar Street
requesting a Variance
for this single-family residential addition
that they're going to add to an existing home.
It's on a corner lot on Escobar Street and Bay View Drive.
The zoning is R6.0, which is single-family zoning district.
The lot size is 5,220 square feet,
and the surrounding land uses
is also single-family residential.
A little bit about the project.
The proposed project is a 1,782 square foot addition
to the existing single-family residence.
It is adding a garage, two bedrooms, two bathrooms,
and a little bit of square footage, and other rooms as well.
Here's the existing on the left side
and the proposed site plan.
In the Staff Report and in the Resolution,
there are in-depth plans that show this as well.
Here, we have the front and rear elevations.
So at the top, we have the existing.
At the bottom, we do have the proposed elevations.
And then here are going to be the side elevations,
the existing is on the left side,
and on the right side are the proposed elevations.
So after showing the elevations and the site plan,
I wanted to dive a little bit deeper
into what the additions are, what the Variance request is.
So with the Variance request,
they're requesting a Variance for the front,
the street side yard setback, the rear setback,
increase of lot coverage, floor area ratio,
and they are requesting a minor exception for the height.
So as you can see, we do have an existing and proposed.
So for the majority,
so for the front and the street side yard setback.
The existing is already existing non-conforming.
So any addition that they would've made
that they're proposing to do
would not increase what's already existing
in terms of the minimum side yard setback that they have.
Again, it's existing non-conforming,
but they are increasing the addition
and expansion into the rear yard setback,
as well as the lot coverage and FAR.
One thing they are doing is because they are adding a garage
where they initially had a zero covered parking,
they are adding two covered parking spaces
with that garage addition.
So with the Variance,
they do have to make specific findings,
and staff believes
that all the findings that are listed here
can be affirmatively made.
There are other neighboring properties
in the vicinity of the subject site
that are inconsistent
with several other development standards
in the R6.0 Zoning District,
including floor area ratio, lot coverage, and setbacks.
Another thing to note is that
the minimum lot coverage for R6.0 is 6,000 square feet.
As mentioned earlier, their lot is 5,277 square feet
which does limit them a little bit with lot coverage
and floor area ratio.
With the minor exception findings.
Here are the findings
that should be made for the minor exception.
The request for a minor exception is to increase the height,
which was not included as a part
of the public hearing notice
since minor exceptions are generally not subject
to public hearings.
However, we did include the minor exception description
and the increase in height into the Staff Report,
and it was posted online,
so it is available online and it's included there.
Staff believes that the height increase
would not pose a detrimental impact
to the site and adjacent properties,
and comply with the intent of the zoning district.
Earlier today, not too long ago,
we did receive one public comment.
In that public comment they expressed appreciation
for the improvement at the property,
but they were concerned with the overall project expansion.
In their email
they didn't mention that they had reviewed the plans,
but just respectfully asked that the reviewing body
can carefully consider
whether the proposed height and modifications
would just maintain the compatibility
of the surrounding neighborhood.
Some notable recommended conditions of approval
is going to be landscaping and screening
especially because they're expanding
on the side and the rear yard
and increasing the height slightly.
The Applicant shall require to prepare a landscaping plan
with the intent to screen the side yard property line
and increase privacy for the respective property owners.
And that landscaping plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Division
and approved by
the Community and Economic Development Director,
or designee, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
With that, the recommendation is to conduct a public hearing
and adopt Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 26-18,
approving a request from Tony and Tiffany Chantri,
to reduce the required rear yard setback
from 25 feet to 20 feet,
reduce the required side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet,
reduce the required front yard setback
from 20 feet to 5 feet,
increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 45%,
increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.5 to 0.58,
and a minor exception to increase the building height
to 25 feet and 7 inches where 25 feet is permitted,
and this would be to construct a 1,782 square foot addition
to the single-family residence,
totaling 3,037 square feet, located at 103 Escobar Street.
And with that, I will be happy to answer any questions.
- Thank you, Imanol.
I had not had a chance
to read the public comment that came in late.
Could you please forward that to me so I could read it?
I'd like to make sure I read it
before making a decision on this project.
- Yes, I can forward it right now.
- And while you do that,
I can allow the Applicant to make a presentation.
- So I believe the Applicant might not be here,
but the architect, Kirk, is here.
And Kirk, are you available to speak?
- Kirk, please feel free to unmute yourself
and make any presentation.
- [Kirk] There. It wasn't letting me unmute.
But now can you hear me okay?
- Yes. - Yes.
- Hi, I'm Kirk Shelby. I'm the architect.
I've been working with Tony Chantri
for a number of years, actually.
This home is his family home.
He grew up in the home himself.
He's in his 70s now.
His mother lived in it up until recently.
She's now in a care facility.
And the house has remained empty since her absence,
and I'm not quite sure how many years that's been,
but it's been a long time.
And so things have kind of gone.
They've somewhat kept it up, but no one's been living there.
Vegetation hasn't been taken care of for obvious reasons.
No one's there.
And general wear and tear
of the various exterior components of the house
are having an effect.
And so Tony had asked me some time ago
to look into improving it.
At that time, he wasn't sure who the occupant would be.
But since that time, his daughter, Tiffany,
has expressed an interest to move into the home.
And so at that point, we were able to kind of tailor,
more tailor the designs of the addition
to what we wanted to do.
And so that is, in large part,
the result of why we've got it.
Original house was kind of, it was a 1950s-style home.
So it had small living room, small kitchen,
small dining room, a couple of bedrooms, a shared bathroom,
a sitting area that was kind of adjacent to the dining.
So it was... A covered porch.
It had a number of items that worked well,
I believe, at the early stages.
But over time, given how things have changed
with respect to what's anticipated
and wanted in a home, that's changed.
And so as a result, we've reconfigured it.
The other thing that was taking place,
excuse me for diverging a little bit,
the roof design looks like it's been added on.
I think the house has been added onto over time
since its original construction.
There was an 8 and 12 pitch,
which was predominant in the major portions of the house,
but there are some other 2 and 12 kind of things
that are in there.
And you can see that on the existing floor plan.
It shows kind of how that was
on the upper floor roof demo plan
that we recently did for review.
So we've revised the roof.
We've taken down the pitch
to what we consider the minimum pitch, 6 and 12.
A 4 and 12 pitch could be done,
but generally, the area has a variety of pitches,
4 and 12 being the least of them.
And so the idea was to try to maintain
the original character of the home,
which has a little more traditional feel
than just a ranch-style house.
And the other thing that comes into play is
there's a large section existing in the house.
The living and dining area
is intended to be one large cathedral ceiling
connecting the two spaces.
And so in order to accomplish that with roof trusses,
we're going to do 6 and 12 exterior pitch
and a 4 and 12 interior pitch,
which allows us to get a significant architectural effect
on the interior.
So those are kind of the reasons why it is what it is.
It's my practice typically
to try to maintain the same roof pitch throughout,
it creates some consistency with the elevations,
rather than doing a whole hodgepodge
of different roof heights.
The garage was something that was clearly lacking.
Parking was stacked up, was kind of tandem,
or even, I don't know what you call three cars stacked up,
along the side yard.
And so this allows a more normal two-car garage
with ability for two cars to park in the driveway
without encroaching on the side yard.
So I think it opens up
and reduces vehicular impact to the side neighbor,
where right now you run right against the fence.
Tony Chantri is a builder
and has had interactions with the City on other projects,
knew people downtown.
Originally, he wanted to be the one
that would do the interface with the community.
He's a lifelong Martinez resident,
so it all seemed to make sense.
So I can't really speak to what conversations took place
between the City and them.
All I can tell you is tell you
what he told me in terms of direction.
We pushed in order to accomplish a number of things,
particularly the entry.
Right now, the entry kind of comes in between the kitchen
and into a blank wall.
We wanted to change that a bit.
We wanted to increase the kitchen.
So we removed a portion of the interior kitchen area along,
it would be along,
I guess it would be the north side
of the front of that appendage,
that peninsula that sticks out,
and conversely added some on the other side,
on the south side that fronts the cross street,
Bay Street, I believe it is.
That allows us to get a little straighter circulation,
allows us to get a little bigger kitchen.
It also allows us to get access to the garage
because currently the steps,
the exterior steps that lead to the front door
would encroach on that,
which then wouldn't allow us to have a two-car garage.
We end up with a one car, at least a one-car door.
And so it seemed like
all of those kinds of revisions made sense
to improve the overall character of the building.
- Great.
- [Kirk] Any other questions I can answer,
I'd be happy to answer.
- No, I appreciate you giving me the history
as well as the design intent
and things you were trying to accomplish
through the project.
I do have one quick question.
Want to confirm you had a chance to read through
the draft resolution and conditions of approval,
and see if you have any issues or concerns.
- [Kirk] Do not have issues or concerns
with respect to those conditions.
They seem to be reasonable.
The landscaping was always intended.
We just don't, you know...
Without knowing whether we would be approved or not,
we didn't really tackle that,
but it's always been the consideration.
There is a lot of vegetation along,
not Escobar, but the other street.
You cannot see into the backyard
or see the back part of the house.
I had to poke through the fence
to be able to get any adequate pictures
to study that when I was trying to figure out the roof.
But, so, it's pretty well taken care of there.
But there are other areas along the rear.
There's a shed that's going to be removed
that is going to provide a lot of ability
for additional landscape screening,
as well as the south side where the current driveway is.
- Well, I appreciate that, Kirk.
Thank you for confirming and the additional information.
I don't have further questions for you at this time,
but I would like to open it up for any member of the public
who wishes to speak on this item.
You can raise your hand.
I'm seeing Tim Farley.
Dee Dee, if you could promote him, please?
Tim, please go ahead.
- [Tim] Hello. Can you hear me?
- Yes. - Wonderful.
Thank you so much Director Cass and Planner Tovar.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Zoning Board.
First off, I'm excited to welcome the Chantri family
back to the home.
They've been part of this neighborhood
for maybe even 90 years.
And so we're excited about having them return.
The house has been abandoned and neglected
for 16, 18 years now,
and so we are pleased
that there will be some activity on the property.
I am sitting here with Art Price.
He is on Bay View, and he'll address you shortly.
And then I do have some comments from Jamie Hilgendorf
at 110 Escobar Street.
So if you would indulge me
to address both of their concerns.
I'll address Jamie's,
and then Mr. Price himself can address his own concerns.
But as I said, we are eager to welcome the Chantries,
and an improvement
is better than the derelict house that we have.
We've had homeless people there.
I work from home.
I've called the police a few times
because of the nuisance that's present there.
I did have a chance to review the plans.
I'm not an architect. I'm not a planner.
I'm not a contractor.
I do think that it's a bit of an ambitious project
to have such a large home.
I think you're doubling the capacity, the square footage,
or nearly doubling the square footage for that lot.
And I have some concerns about that.
The architect, the planners know better than I do,
so I will leave that with you.
My major concern, though, is the height.
I think the height is just a bit much for the neighborhood.
One of the things that we do enjoy here is our view shed.
And I know that when a 50 Escobar was built
they promised me that it would only be a certain height,
and it went very high.
So I would ask, this is Tim Farley,
that we could get story poles
so we could envision just how high it's going to be
and what impact it would have on our views.
So that's the request that I have.
I don't want to slow the project down.
I don't want to kill the project.
I do think that it's important
that we welcome Tiffany when she comes back to Martinez.
But Tim Farley and Eileen
are very concerned about the height
and some of the massing that's going on.
With that, I'm going to have Art Price from Bay View Street
address some of his concerns.
And then when he's done, I will read the statement
from Jamie Hilgendorf at 110 Escobar.
- Tim, before moving on to another person,
if you could please just wrap up the comments you have,
and then we can move on to the other individual.
- Okay, so Jamie Hilgendorf at 110
is on a flight right now or else he would be on the Zoom,
but he asked me if I would read.
I'd show it to you, but there's no camera.
But this is what Jamie Hilgendorf prepared,
and he's going to submit it later on.
And he said, "I oppose the idea of a Variance
"to the property located at 103 Escobar Street
"Residential Zoning District for the following reasons.
"Number one, this would set a new precedent
"for zoning on Escobar Street,
"as they are already close to Escobar Street,
"than any other neighboring property.
"Number two, I believe
"that allowing the side and front yard setbacks
"to change to what they are asking
"would impair the view of oncoming traffic
"from Bay View to Escobar Street or vice versa.
"Three, looking at the request
"from a hardship point of view,
"the only hardship that they have
"is they are trying to build too big of a house
"on the size lot that they have."
Again, these are Mr. Hilgendorf's comments, not mine.
"I feel that granting the Variance
"would be a bigger hardship for all the property owners
"on this side of Escobar Street than it is worth,
"and would ultimately be regretted by all.
"Number four, please don't get me wrong,
"I would love to see an improvement to this property
"that has been the blight of the neighborhood
"for over 16 years
"with little attention or consideration
"to the excess garbage that we have had to live with."
And that's sincerely Jamie Hilgendorf of 110 Escobar Street.
So those are Mr. Hilgendorf's comments.
And I'm going to turn the screen over to Mr. Art Price
and he can tell you his concerns and where he lives.
- Thank you. - Oh, sorry.
- [Art] Hi, my name's Art Price.
I live at 534 Bay View,
and I look directly over the 103 house.
There are other ways to trim.
I'm a superintendent for a large commercial company.
Build high rises in San Francisco and so on.
You can go with conventional rafting
that takes away from the trusses.
Trusses take a lot of room.
To lower the roof, just to lower the roof down,
get it down to 25 foot.
That's all we're asking.
- Do you have any additional comments?
- [Art] I did.
On the back, the Cypress have grown up way out of control
and they're up into the PG&E lines.
And constantly we have sparks flying down into his property.
It's not so concerning to me because I'm across the street.
But when he's going to build a new house,
I've seen big buildings go up in flame and they go quick.
- Okay. Appreciate the comments.
Thank you so much. - Okay.
- And now I'd like to invite Family, is what the name says,
to make any public comments.
- Hi there. Can you hear me? - Yes.
- [Susie] This is Susie and John Gardnell.
We live in 107. We're right below 103.
Don't even know where to start.
This house has been a nightmare for seven years.
When we bought this house, we were promised by Tony
that he was going to come back and rebuild.
And it just sat there empty
for homeless and some nasty people to live there,
and animals galore.
We've just had a dead deer laying there
stinking up the neighborhood.
But we are very excited that the house is,
it's going to be redone because it's a total eyesore.
And we hopefully--
- And a fire hazard. - And a total fire hazard.
I mean, it's been a total fire hazard.
I'm surprised no one's,
nothing's been done about this house
because of the fire hazard.
But in a few years, we will need to sell our house.
And we're a little worried
that we're going to have this huge house
looming over our house.
I don't know where the garage is going to go,
so I'm not sure...
I mean, we've been kind of lucky
that we haven't had neighbors for seven years,
and so then we're going to go
and have this ginormous house on top of us.
You know, I just...
I don't know what else to say, but that worries us.
Our fence, I'm not sure what...
They're going to look down into our yard?
I'm not sure how it's going to work.
Just a little worried about this huge house.
And the front being five feet
or three feet, whatever, to the street,
that's a little bothersome as well.
It's just a huge house going on this property
that doesn't seem that big.
That's about it.
Do you have anything to say?
- [John] No.
- [Susie] That's it. We're just a little worried that...
I don't know what this house is going to look like.
I can't really tell by the pictures and stuff,
but just, like I said,
we're going to sell this house in a few years
and I don't want it to affect the sale of our house.
- Okay. Well, thank you very much for your comments.
I appreciate you attending and expressing them.
I'd now like to invite Jeremy
to make any public comments that you wish to make.
- [Jeremy] Hi, thank you. Can you hear me?
- Yes.
- [Jeremy] Yeah. My name is Jeremy Guiley.
Me and my wife and our family live at 14 Escobar Street,
and we just have a few comments.
So we appreciate the effort
the property owners are making to improve a home
that has appeared to be abandoned for many years.
It's encouraging to see investment
in revitalizing the neighborhood.
Our only concern at this time is that
we are interested in the proposed height of the home,
with it being expanded, and the roof height specifically.
We support updating the property.
We just hope that the final design
is going to remain compatible with the surrounding homes
and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
We respectfully ask
that the reviewing body carefully consider
whether the proposed height is appropriate,
and if possible, encourage modifications
that achieve the owner's goals
while maintaining compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood.
I also want to echo the comments
about the corner there between Escobar
and the traffic that comes around the corner.
There's been several accidents on that corner
with cars hitting each other or parked cars.
And a view around that corner
is, I believe, important for public safety
as well as safety of pedestrians around Escobar.
So if those could be considered,
we would really appreciate it.
Thank you.
- Well, thank you very much, Jeremy.
I appreciate you attending and expressing your comments.
Any other members of the public
who wish to speak on this item?
Okay. I'm hearing none.
I do want to put on the record
the comment that was sent from Brooke Guiley,
that was emailed to me during the meeting,
I did have a chance to read it, so I just want to make sure
that gets reflected on the record.
I'd now like to invite Kirk, if you'd like to respond
to the public comments that were received.
- [Kirk] Sure.
I can certainly appreciate everybody's concern
with respect to the size of the home.
But most of the expansion of the home
occurs along the back property.
That's where the lion's share of the area is
that's been expanded.
The upper floor area is like 2,000 square feet.
So you're talking about 500 feet of the garage.
And to clarify, the garage is underneath the living space
in a space that previously was blank underfloor space,
unused space.
Yes, it projects out four feet from the lower level
to allow for sufficient depth in the garage.
The height of the building, what we try to do is,
is try to utilize the same things that were occurring.
I mean, the main living space,
in fact, the entire living space is upstairs,
as it's always been.
It's always been at that floor level.
So, the porch area that was converted into living space
looks out across the view,
and that really hasn't changed
in terms of the number of windows
and things that are going to occur along there.
Yes, recessed from that facade
is the step back where the master bedroom is,
and there is a porch or deck off that.
But it's only...
I mean, I think it would be appropriate for,
in the development of the home
for the owner to want to get views
that they currently have out those second story,
if you want to call it second story,
second story as it relates to the north property line.
It's one story as it relates to the south property line.
So, all those things have an impact on
how the height of the house is perceived as 27 feet,
because we're measuring from the lower end up to the top,
not from the upper side to the top.
That being said, anything can be done architecturally.
The question is going to be is:
is the resultant reduction of two feet,
whether you lop off two feet of the ridge?
Only one section of the roof extends
to the full height of the overall height.
It's a hip section that lies to the rear
of where the living and dining area space is.
And it hips up,
it purposely hips up so there's not a gable there.
It purposely hips up so it's not going to be as obvious.
But it does get higher
because that's the widest span for the roof to go.
But there are ways to adjust that
to go from 27 to 25, if that's a game break.
In terms of the overall square footage, I don't know the...
You probably know better than I
what the range of floor areas are for that neighborhood.
I have no idea what they are.
But I know from experience
that a 2,200 square foot living space
isn't generally considered to be overwhelming.
With respect, it's not like we're building
a 5,000 square foot monster house next to smaller homes.
So again, I don't know.
I mean, I'm happy to talk to anybody on site
to alleviate any concerns.
But we've got 2,139 square feet on the upper floor.
That includes three bedrooms, two baths,
a kitchen, a dining room, and a living room.
There's no family room. There's no nook.
So, it is a fairly straightforward house.
The additional square feet is a lower-floor guest suite
that could be used as an ADU.
We hadn't anticipated using it as an ADU,
but it could be used as an ADU if it was allowed.
It's removed from the rest of the house.
You go downstairs to get to it.
It's accessible from the garage.
But the original intent was
if Ms. Chantri had a guest that wanted to stay,
it would give them the opportunity to stay,
visit with her and have a modicum of privacy.
Having had that experience with my in-laws,
it's nice to be able to do that,
to be able to take,
to not constantly intrude upon your host's lifestyle.
So, I mean, those are the rationale for the reasons.
I think they're reasonable thoughts.
I certainly can appreciate the concerns
with respect to reduction of view.
If story poles are the answer,
then obviously that will take some time to erect and done.
I think from my experience
a story poll would be good to show
not just what the proposed profile would be,
but also how it relates to the existing profile.
The problem with story poles is, how do you erect them?
I mean, they're easy to erect
when you have nothing on the property.
They're a little more difficult to manage
when you've got a building sitting
where you're trying to erect story poles.
So I don't know about that, but.
- And Kirk, question for you.
There also was a comment about concerns with the tree
and how it impacts utility lines that are there.
- [Kirk] Yeah, I don't think, you know...
That is one of those...
And certainly I can...
I live across the street from a property
that's been vacant, just sold last week.
It's been vacant for 15 years,
so I can certainly appreciate the concerns that go on.
I had to go in the backyard and mow down all the weeds
because it backs up to the park.
And 4th of July, we were concerned
it was going to light the whole...
That an errant firecracker or firework
would light the whole neighborhood on fire.
So I can certainly appreciate those concerns.
In talking to Mr. Chantri,
and again, I can't speak to
what's taken place over the years,
but he's assured me that he wants to clean all that up.
And so, I don't anticipate or see any problems
with making sure that that hazard is dealt with.
On the other hand, we want to...
I think that the neighborhood would probably want to keep
the screening ability of those trees.
So maybe it's a maintenance thing
where the trees don't need to be removed,
but they need to be significantly pruned and kept pruned
so they don't encroach on the power lines.
- Okay. Appreciate that.
Any final comments?
- [Kirk] Well, we've tried to do our best
in terms of creating a design.
We've met with a couple of people
and talked to a couple of people
when I've been walking the site.
Everybody seems to be wanting to have something done.
We haven't had any real design powwows.
I think, you know...
I don't know if anybody had seen this plan previously.
So I can certainly appreciate the concern
that neighbors would have
in terms of seeing something being built
in the neighborhood.
- Okay. Well, thank you, Kirk.
I am seeing a raised hand, but I want to note that
unfortunately the way that public hearings work
is public comment period is actually now done.
So I apologize for that.
And it's now at the point
that I will deliberate on the item.
So first and foremost, I want to thank everyone
for being just as respectful and neighborly as everyone has.
It's a development project,
and change in a neighborhood can be challenging.
And so it speaks highly of everyone that lives there,
so thank you.
Second, it was alluded to
in terms of concerns about square footage and height.
From the square footage standpoint,
I am not concerned with the project.
I find that, generally speaking, it's well-designed
and well-articulated to break up that massing
and doesn't feel quite like
what the square footage is representing.
I also think it's important to point out
that at the site, there is some topographic change,
and as the architect alluded to,
that definitely is a factor
in terms of what the height number represents.
Saying that, I do think it is
a reasonable request from the neighbors
to ask for some additional information
so they can understand
what the height of the proposed development is going to be
as it relates to their properties
and as it relates to the neighborhood.
So what I am prepared to do,
I actually am going to continue the matter,
and I'm going to continue the matter
to the meeting on August the 13th,
that is Thursday, at four o'clock.
And a note for the neighbors,
the item will not be re-noticed,
but an agenda and Staff Report will be posted,
and you can always reach out to Imanol
from a timing standpoint.
In advance of that meeting,
the Applicant in working with staff,
what I would request is some additional information
to represent to both the Zoning Administrator
and to the neighbors about the proposed height.
That does not necessarily need to be story poles.
As you represented, I share a lot of those concerns.
I actually think story poles oftentimes can misrepresent
the height and massing of a structure.
Other option might be a section through the property
and potentially going into the street
and the downhill property
so there's a little bit more information,
or extending the front elevations
so that it is showing the adjacent property.
I think that would go a long way.
I also encourage, but I'm not going to require,
but encourage in advance of the meeting on the 13th
the Property Owner and the architect to meet with neighbors,
maybe hold a neighborhood meeting
to talk through the project
and ideally work through
some potential concerns that the neighbors have
in advance of the item coming forward,
coming back to me for consideration.
And then finally, just to put it on the record,
from staff's perspective, I would consider it an ADU.
And for the betterment of information for the public,
accessory dwelling units,
when they comply with development standards,
the City does not have any discretion over them.
So that will be a component of the project.
And then finally, assuming if the project is approved,
I would like to see a condition of approval
when this comes back
addressing the vegetation's encroachment
within the power lines, as part of this project.
So again, continuing the matter
to a date certain of August the 13th.
If there's any questions,
please reach out to the project planner, Imanol Tovar,
and he can answer them.
And at that, I am prepared to adjourn today's meeting
at 5:16 PM.
Thank you very much.
(no audio)