[0:34] soon.

[0:38] » Hello.

[0:40] I'd like to call to order the July 21st

[0:43] meeting of the Ross Advisory Design

[0:46] Review Group. Um, the first thing we

[0:49] always do here is we open up to public

[0:52] comment. If anyone wants to speak for up

[0:54] to three minutes on any topic that is

[0:56] not on the agenda, now is a time that

[0:59] you may do so.

[1:02] Okay.

[1:03] >> No.

[1:03] >> Shame no one

[1:05] >> wanted to do that this time. Um the

[1:08] first order of business is we will

[1:10] approve the minutes from the June 16th

[1:12] ADR meeting. Um I read those and they

[1:14] looked fine to me, but if anyone has any

[1:16] suggestions for changes or to second the

[1:18] approval.

[1:20] >> The approval.

[1:21] >> Yep. No changes. Great. Okay. Now, we'll

[1:23] start the planning and projects. Uh for

[1:26] those of you that haven't been here or

[1:28] don't recall, the way this works is for

[1:31] each project, the town gives a short

[1:33] introduction of the project and then the

[1:36] owners andor their design team gives a

[1:39] longer presentation during which the ADR

[1:41] members might or might not ask questions

[1:44] for clarifications.

[1:46] Uh after that we open it up to the

[1:48] public if anybody wants to comment about

[1:51] any project. And then after that we

[1:54] bring it back to the ADR so we can make

[1:56] our recommendations to the town council.

[1:59] And the first project is 92 Glenwood

[2:02] Avenue.

[2:03] >> Yeah. Uh good evening ADR members. Uh

[2:05] tonight the applicant at 92 Glennwood

[2:07] Avenue is requesting a recommendation uh

[2:10] to the town council for design review

[2:12] and a demolition permit. Uh this is the

[2:15] existing uh house here.

[2:19] Uh and it's and the project is proposing

[2:21] to replace the existing siding uh I mean

[2:24] stuckle uh with western western red

[2:27] cedar shingles throughout the entire

[2:29] house.

[2:30] And that's pretty much it. And staff

[2:33] request that the ADR group provides a

[2:35] recommendation to the town council.

[2:38] Thank you.

[2:40] Is there anything you'd like to say

[2:41] about your desire to put shingles on the

[2:44] outside of your house?

[2:45] >> If so, please step up to the microphone.

[2:47] These meetings are recorded, so we need

[2:49] you to turn on the microphone and um

[2:53] >> Yes.

[2:54] >> Actually, is it on? Actually, sorry. I

[2:57] can hear you fine, but I don't I'm not

[2:58] sure.

[2:58] >> How about that now?

[2:59] >> Great. Thank you all for being here and

[3:01] for considering the project. We have a

[3:04] older home built in 1931 that had some

[3:06] deteriorating stucco and needed to be

[3:09] replaced to prevent water intrusion. And

[3:11] we also wanted to take the opportunity

[3:13] to improve the structures wildfire

[3:17] risk and reduce it, make it more fires

[3:19] safe to protect the community. And then

[3:22] Cam, I don't know if you want to add

[3:23] anything about the materials and the the

[3:25] scope.

[3:28] Um, hi, I'm Cammy and we recently

[3:32] replaced all the windows because um,

[3:35] previous owners had um, put in new

[3:39] windows to the existing structure and

[3:42] they with the original stucco, it just

[3:45] we had water damage basically all around

[3:47] the house. So, replace them all with

[3:49] nice casement um windows. And in doing

[3:52] so, we had to we saw how much water

[3:55] damage there was. So, we took off the

[3:57] stucco and we were about to then put up

[4:00] new white stucco. And in the process, we

[4:02] thought, well, now that it's off to be

[4:05] more in keeping with the town, we

[4:06] thought that doing a natural wood

[4:09] shingle might just help elevate it even

[4:11] more. And so, that kind of opened up

[4:13] this process.

[4:15] >> Can you show us what

[4:17] >> Yeah.

[4:18] Shingles.

[4:20] >> So, this is the um the company that we

[4:22] found. We talked to the fire department

[4:23] and I kind of worked back and forth with

[4:25] Robera and Alex to find an appropriate

[4:28] material that was still natural, but

[4:30] they come on 8ft boards with fire

[4:34] backing. And it's one of the only ones

[4:36] approved on Cal Fire um for all WOOI

[4:38] zones in California um kind of on its

[4:41] own. So, it comes with like a plywood

[4:44] backing and then a fire retardant and it meets all the buoy requirements for

[4:50] fire zones.

[4:51] >> Oh, that's great you're able to find

[4:52] that. I didn't know that product

[4:53] existed.

[4:54] >> Um, does anyone have any questions?

[4:58] >> I just I saw that your plan is to like

[5:00] give it a year and see how it kind of

[5:03] weathers and then decide if you would

[5:05] keep it unfinished or sealed or whatever

[5:07] or add or paint it, right?

[5:09] >> Gray. So, it took me a minute to decide

[5:13] what would be most in keeping with the

[5:16] house, and I really love the natural

[5:18] look. Um, the company does offer to

[5:20] pre-stain, but I would I would my ideal

[5:24] is to have it age in patina really

[5:26] nicely and kind of have some browns and

[5:30] some grays and have the nice white trim.

[5:33] But if for some reason it didn't age

[5:35] well in our location,

[5:38] I believe that a light gray paint would

[5:41] look also look really nice on our house.

[5:43] So,

[5:45] um kind of giving the option not

[5:47] starting with paint, starting with

[5:48] natural and then see how it ages over a

[5:51] couple of years um and then take it from

[5:54] there if if it would look cleaner or

[5:55] nicer to be painted eventually.

[5:59] >> Thanks.

[6:00] >> Any other questions or comments? All

[6:02] right. Thank you.

[6:03] >> Okay, great.

[6:04] >> Um, does anybody here or online have any

[6:08] comments about this project?

[6:10] >> There's no one online.

[6:13] >> I have a question. So, Alex, a

[6:14] demolition permit is required because if

[6:15] you remove more than 25% of the exterior

[6:17] surface, it's it's that constitutes

[6:20] demolition. Is that right?

[6:21] >> Uh, correct.

[6:22] >> Yeah, we should change that, I think.

[6:23] >> Yeah.

[6:27] » Would anyone like to go first?

[6:29] >> I will. I think it's a great idea. It's

[6:33] going to be beautiful. I'm sorry you had

[6:35] to come before us to jingle your house,

[6:37] but I think it's great.

[6:40] >> I'm pro.

[6:42] >> Um, I'm also supportive of the change. I

[6:45] think it fits well with the context of

[6:47] the houses on your street and the

[6:49] overall design aesthetic of Ross. So,

[6:54] >> I agree with my colleagues and have

[6:56] nothing to add. Ditto. Same here. Good

[6:59] project. Right. Thank you. Good luck.

[7:03] >> Thank you so much.

[7:05] >> Thank you.

[7:09] » Okay. The next project is 98 Laurel

[7:12] Grove. Uh good evening, Indiana members.

[7:15] Uh tonight the applicant at 98 Laurel

[7:17] Grove is requesting a recommendation to

[7:18] the town council for design reviewing

[7:21] and a nonconformity permit. Uh this is

[7:24] the existing guest house here

[7:28] and this is a site plan um showing the

[7:31] guest house and the project is proposing

[7:34] to expand an existing non-conforming

[7:35] guest house by um by 396 ft increasing

[7:40] the total floor area from 385 to 781 ft.

[7:44] The addition will use materials that

[7:46] match the existing guest house and main

[7:49] residence. The project also includes a

[7:52] new patio and a trellis and some

[7:54] retaining walls. Uh next slides are the

[7:58] north elevation here the existing and

[8:00] proposed.

[8:03] The east elevation

[8:06] um the height is changing from 14t 11 in

[8:09] to 20t 6 in.

[8:13] the south elevation existing and

[8:15] proposed.

[8:19] The west elevation existing and proposed

[8:23] and staff request at the ADR group

[8:25] discuss the merits of the project and

[8:27] provide a formal recommendation to the

[8:29] town council. Thank you.

[8:31] >> Thank you. Would you like to come up and

[8:34] say anything about your project?

[8:42] Hello, I'm Jessica Smith with Pski

[8:44] Pearlstein Architects. Jared wasn't able

[8:46] to make it tonight, but sends his

[8:48] regards. Um, I'm here to represent the

[8:52] guest house edition with owner Kelly

[8:54] Dwinell's

[8:55] and essentially the existing footprint

[8:58] stays the same and we're expanding the

[9:00] guest house by adding a level underneath

[9:03] the existing finished floor. So, the

[9:05] elevation of the upper finished floor

[9:07] now stays the same. The roof um

[9:11] elevation stays the same and the new

[9:15] addition will occupy what was crawl

[9:17] space and dig out part of the hillside

[9:21] so that the new finished floor lower

[9:23] level will be kind of at the same level

[9:26] as the main house and will share a patio

[9:29] so that they kind of better connect and

[9:31] it's more usable. Um it meets all of the

[9:37] uh the zoning requirements and is really

[9:39] well screened from the surrounding

[9:41] properties. Um the nonconformity is the

[9:45] existing structure is about 8 in over

[9:48] the sideyard setback. Um thankfully that

[9:51] side has no neighbor next to it. It's

[9:54] really the building is on the other side

[9:56] of the next property and kind of the

[9:59] more prominent facade is on the east

[10:01] facade and that faces the existing house

[10:03] and so you really only experience it

[10:05] from the existing house and the existing

[10:08] carport

[10:09] or car court.

[10:12] Um, and I think that's about it.

[10:16] >> Can I can I ask a question? Is the

[10:18] trellis in the setback then or

[10:21] >> No, this the trellis is actually kind of

[10:23] set in inset from the

[10:25] >> Okay. Okay.

[10:26] >> So, it stays outside of it.

[10:27] >> And then I know we reviewed this project

[10:30] years ago.

[10:32] >> We're not We're just focusing on that

[10:34] one.

[10:35] >> Just this one area.

[10:39] » Can I ask a quick question on the

[10:40] impervious surfaces? There is a patio in

[10:42] front under the trellis. Is that right?

[10:44] >> Correct.

[10:45] >> Okay. I'm just seeing a list of no

[10:47] change on impervious services on the

[10:50] page two of the application.

[10:52] >> What's kind of confusing as part of the

[10:54] larger project happening on the site um

[10:58] the drive court is is all becoming

[11:00] permeable pa and so with that it's

[11:04] offset this addition additional uh patio

[11:08] in front of the the guest house. Got it.

[11:11] >> Okay. Thank you. I I did miss that.

[11:13] Thank you. Any more questions?

[11:16] >> Okay. Thank you.

[11:18] >> Thank you.

[11:20] >> Does anyone in the audience want to

[11:21] comment on this project or anyone at

[11:23] home?

[11:24] >> There is no one online.

[11:26] >> Okay. Um I'll go first. Uh seems great.

[11:30] They're not going into the sideyard

[11:32] setback. They're not putting pool

[11:33] equipment in the sideyard. They're not

[11:35] building a pool four feet from the

[11:36] sideyard. They're actually building

[11:38] something more or less in the middle of

[11:40] their own lot. Uh, and they're not

[11:42] increasing the footprint of anything.

[11:44] So, seems like a great change to me.

[11:53] » Yeah. I mean, I like the volume going

[11:55] down into the earth. The roof line isn't

[11:58] it's the building's not getting taller,

[11:59] so it's not increasing the massing and

[12:02] it

[12:04] possibly visible from across the hill,

[12:06] but none of your neighbors really are

[12:08] going to be impacted by any I mean

[12:09] besides construction by anything. So, um

[12:13] yeah, I would be supportive of it.

[12:17] >> Okay.

[12:18] >> I'm also supportive of it. I think it's

[12:20] a really nice design and the we always

[12:24] have a issue with exacerbating a

[12:26] nonconformity but because the

[12:28] nonconformity is only 8 in into the

[12:32] sideyard setback and this is actually

[12:34] going down in the same footprint I think

[12:36] that can be the findings why we would

[12:38] allow 8 in. Uh I just think it's nicely

[12:42] designed and I support it.

[12:47] >> Yeah, I can concur. I do have one quick

[12:49] question. the HVAC unit on the roof. Is

[12:52] that existing or is that new? There's a

[12:55] split mini split. Is that an

[12:57] >> existing one? Okay. Yeah. Just I just

[12:59] was curious. I saw in the drawings. I

[13:01] can fully support this as uh drawn. It's

[13:03] a nice project.

[13:05] >> I agree. I have nothing to add.

[13:13] » Now we will move on.

[13:16] to the conceptual

[13:18] advisory design review for 8 Morrison

[13:20] Road.

[13:21] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh let me allow Shalley

[13:24] to

[13:28] » Oh, okay. Okay.

[13:32] » Yeah. Um let me pull up the plants.

[13:36] >> Yeah.

[13:41] » Can you guys hear us? Okay.

[13:42] >> Minutes.

[13:43] >> Okay, perfect.

[13:47] It's like it's like I have senioritis.

[13:52] » Two projects in 13 minutes.

[13:54] >> It is.

[14:01] » Have you guys been by the residence? The

[14:03] house?

[14:05] >> Have you Have you guys been by the house

[14:06] this morning? Today?

[14:09] >> Oh, okay.

[14:10] >> Yesterday.

[14:11] >> Yeah.

[14:12] >> I did not go up the driveway though. in

[14:14] the driveway.

[14:14] >> Yeah, [laughter]

[14:23] » there's no way that could be constructed

[14:24] today.

[14:29] » It must be at least 14%.

[14:34] >> Just in case.

[14:34] >> Oh, nice. Thank you.

[14:36] >> Oh, perfect.

[14:40] » So, you're going to produce the project

[14:41] first?

[14:42] >> No.

[14:43] conceptual.

[14:45] >> Oh, it's on me. Oh, nice. Okay. Um, so

[14:48] can you go to the next slide, please?

[14:50] Um, so basically

[14:53] the scope of work is just enclosing that

[14:56] um cardboard.

[14:58] Um, sheet A1.1 please.

[15:05] Nice. Okay. So top left is the existing

[15:09] condition and the lower right is the

[15:12] proposed design. Um so we are proposing

[15:15] to enclose existing carport into the

[15:18] garage and then giving

[15:22] um a connection

[15:25] right here. That's going to be a new

[15:28] hallway connecting

[15:30] the garage to the house. So existing

[15:34] [clears throat]

[15:36] is

[15:37] um open carport with a covered um

[15:42] hallway but it's exterior to the house.

[15:45] So we would like to enclose that space

[15:48] as well. Um that's the gray area right

[15:51] here. Um yeah, that's pretty much the the scope of work. And

[15:58] um can we quickly go to the slide

[16:05] um elevation A2.1? Oh yeah, this one is

[16:08] good too. So as you can see the existing

[16:12] carport [clears throat] has like very

[16:15] low ceiling like 7 ft. Um for today

[16:19] modern standard we would like to raise

[16:20] it up higher. Um so that create um this

[16:24] box right here but still taking the

[16:28] shape and the footprint of the existing

[16:30] carport. So we're not changing any um

[16:34] lot coverage. Like if you look from the

[16:36] top view down um you won't see the

[16:39] change at all because the roof is

[16:41] already there and only change will be

[16:44] the height of the garage. Um yeah and um

[16:50] we we're going to need a variance for

[16:52] this project which seems because it's

[16:54] already over the allowable. So that's

[16:58] pretty much the scope of work for the

[17:00] project.

[17:02] >> Okay. Um I'm sure

[17:04] >> they're really just requesting a

[17:07] variance to the F and it's going to be

[17:10] 118 square feet to enclose that walkway.

[17:14] That way they can connect the garage to

[17:17] the house.

[17:18] >> So the walkway that's proposed that

[17:21] would increase the F because it's it's

[17:22] pretty hard to get an a variance in

[17:25] general for F. Uh usually they don't do

[17:29] that. Um and in this case it's on the

[17:31] back side of the house so literally no

[17:33] one else will ever be able to see it

[17:35] from anywhere. But is there any

[17:38] precedent in the town for letting

[17:40] someone increase F so they can have a

[17:42] walkway between the garage and the

[17:44] house? Because it seems like if the town

[17:46] council voted yes for this, then there

[17:49] are a lot of unattached garages or

[17:53] semi-attached garages in the town,

[17:55] including mine, where you could then

[17:58] say, "Well, could shouldn't I be able to

[18:00] go over my F to build a a covered

[18:03] walkway or an enclosed walkway uh

[18:06] between the two structures?"

[18:08] >> Um, recently there have been a couple,

[18:11] two that I know of. one on Allen. That

[18:14] was because their entrance was on the

[18:16] second story. So, uh, the ADR in the

[18:19] town did support them to go over their F

[18:23] so that they can basically have a first

[18:25] floor entrance to their home.

[18:28] >> Um, do you remember the address?

[18:30] >> Yeah. 39.

[18:31] >> 39.

[18:32] >> Okay. And then the other one recently is

[18:36] the one on

[18:37] >> 103 Bolinus.

[18:40] >> Yes. 103 Bolinus. All that was was a

[18:43] closet. It was like 103 square ft or

[18:46] something. And they really, you know, um

[18:49] just needed some storage space. So, we

[18:53] did let them pull out their rear. What

[18:58] was it? Three or four feet. Seemed

[19:00] reasonable. Everything there in that

[19:02] area was already non-conforming.

[19:05] So, there was really no way for them to

[19:06] add without getting a variance.

[19:09] Um, let's see what other any others

[19:13] >> could be considered.

[19:19] » Well, could you show us could you blow

[19:21] up?

[19:23] >> Yeah. Up there.

[19:27] » We are looking for reasons to support

[19:31] this findings to help to help you do it

[19:35] so it won't set a precedent for future

[19:37] applicants.

[19:39] Okay.

[19:44] » So, right now they can't go from the

[19:47] carport to the house. They have to go

[19:48] out and then walk down. Basically, it's

[19:52] like a overhang of the roof. That's

[19:55] really it. So, if it's raining or

[19:57] something,

[19:58] >> they're getting wet.

[19:59] >> This increases F, but not lock coverage.

[20:02] >> Not lock coverage,

[20:03] >> which is kind of an interesting here

[20:05] because it's all under the eve, right?

[20:07] So that's a pretty unique scenario where

[20:11] you're really and the bulk and mass is

[20:13] not affected in any way, shape or form.

[20:14] >> No. Well, I think I I want to talk

[20:16] separately about the roof line of the

[20:18] garage.

[20:18] >> That's a different story. I agree with

[20:19] that. But

[20:20] >> but I agree that the that it's already

[20:23] covered with a roof line makes it really

[20:25] benign. I don't know how if that creates

[20:28] a findings route, but

[20:30] >> yeah, speaking just of the hallway, not the not the garage,

[20:35] >> right? hallway has

[20:38] some

[20:40] >> other means of egress out into that

[20:42] hallway. Right.

[20:43] >> See, there's two there's another door

[20:45] from that

[20:46] >> basically moving that entry door.

[20:49] >> Just moving the front door out.

[20:50] >> Yeah, moving the front door out.

[20:54] » Well, maybe uh the ADR members could

[20:56] comment on Well, you can comment on

[20:58] anything, but specifically break up the

[21:01] project into two. One is whether or not

[21:04] you think there might be findings for

[21:06] increasing the F and another one about

[21:08] the enclosing the carport and making it

[21:10] a garage. Um it was like because like my

[21:14] house also like we walk out a door from

[21:17] the garage covered walkway for 10 ft

[21:20] into our house and

[21:23] we could enclose that and I don't think

[21:25] it would affect anybody negatively and

[21:27] it would also actually I don't it might

[21:31] get us over the F at that point and it

[21:34] would not increase the footprint

[21:36] whatsoever because there's also there's

[21:38] already a covered walkway there. So

[21:39] there's probably other ones in the town

[21:42] like that too, I'm assuming.

[21:47] » Go ahead if you have some thoughts.

[21:50] >> No, not exactly about findings. I just

[21:52] think that it's like it's pretty benign

[21:53] in its position. It's benign

[21:55] volutrically. It doesn't hurt anybody.

[21:57] The the F is so stringent because it's

[21:59] Hillside in this case. just got a lot of

[22:01] things going for it um that are hard to

[22:03] meet literally with the code but that

[22:05] are pretty fine under the kind of the

[22:09] general spirit of the code here. Um and

[22:11] so it's about I think for the hallway

[22:13] it's about trying to kind of help find

[22:16] the finding.

[22:18] Um, but does but does the does the lot

[22:20] face a unique hardship that is not that

[22:23] is that others kind of don't face or

[22:27] that that if it literal interpretation

[22:29] would prohibit them from consider from

[22:31] normal enjoyment that other people

[22:32] enjoy?

[22:33] >> I don't know, dude.

[22:34] >> Not really.

[22:36] Yeah, I struggle with the

[22:38] >> I would like to support this, but I

[22:40] struggle with the findings given that it

[22:41] is

[22:42] >> you're almost by adding this you're

[22:45] almost double the hillside lot F

[22:48] >> then you're supposed to allow which is

[22:49] really restrictive as as Stephen said at

[22:51] 600 some odd

[22:53] >> square feet very I I understand it's

[22:54] really restrictive

[22:56] >> but you're almost doubling it right with

[22:58] this extra 180 square feet it's like you

[23:01] know 1300 square foot home or lot

[23:04] coverage or Sorry. F over the allowable.

[23:08] So, it's hard to understand how we think

[23:10] through that.

[23:12] >> Maybe let's talk maybe let's move to

[23:14] just some of the design of the carport

[23:15] itself.

[23:16] >> Yeah, let's let's talk about that first

[23:18] and then we'll do the covered walkway.

[23:21] >> Maybe uh Alex, if you could show one of

[23:23] the elevations.

[23:24] >> Uh yeah, thank you. You slide to the

[23:26] right of that of that. Uh or just back

[23:28] out.

[23:29] >> I struggle a little bit with the height.

[23:31] I understand the height of the current

[23:32] carport is restrictive and you would

[23:35] like to raise that up. Makes total

[23:37] sense.

[23:38] >> Unfortunately, the home is such a is a

[23:40] low slung home overall. Raising the the carport now now garage to the to the

[23:47] height that it you're proposing becomes

[23:50] the dominant physical feature of the

[23:52] project which you know in in from a

[23:55] design standpoint I would prefer not to

[23:57] see. So, I would love to see maybe an

[23:59] exploration of you you have some, you

[24:01] know, I call it, you know, have a

[24:03] totally flat roof home. Is there a way

[24:06] to minimize that garage roof so it's not

[24:09] so tall maybe with a different roof

[24:11] form?

[24:11] >> I think following the slope of the main

[24:13] house literally or if that's too short

[24:17] at the left hand side of the diagram,

[24:18] then doing an offset where it's exactly

[24:20] parallel but offset by one foot

[24:22] vertically would make it look like it

[24:24] was designed in concert with rather than

[24:26] as an addition. I think that's what I

[24:27] was thinking the same thing like there's

[24:29] a way to to infuse this a little bit

[24:31] better into the into what the roof

[24:33] structure is with the home without being

[24:36] so tall. It does look even on the on the

[24:38] facade looks a little extra tall. Um you

[24:42] know that's possible with that idea like

[24:45] um

[24:46] like yeah we looked into those ideas

[24:49] like have it lower and have it like

[24:52] matching the slope or work together with

[24:54] the existing home. But this scheme came

[24:57] out just because um waterproofing is

[25:00] easier for this scheme if you build it

[25:02] up. So it gives you like the curve

[25:05] height to work with the

[25:07] >> Yeah. over the existing

[25:08] >> over the existing. Yeah. Um so that's

[25:11] just the construction method is it's

[25:13] easier this way. But um yeah, we we we

[25:16] can compromise and bring it down and

[25:19] make it work with existing house as

[25:21] well.

[25:22] >> Does this garage uh I'm sorry conform to

[25:24] setbacks?

[25:27] I think so. Um, do you have the site

[25:29] plan?

[25:30] >> Do we The setbacks are not notated on

[25:32] the the site plan. Is that right?

[25:36] >> They are onet.

[25:39] » The setbacks are here.

[25:42] >> Oh, they're noted 24T, 23 feet, and 70

[25:46] foot1. I don't know where the sides and

[25:48] rear are and stuff like this. It just

[25:49] notes.

[25:49] >> Yeah. And I don't know whether those are

[25:51] just current dimensions versus

[25:53] >> the frontage is along the street which

[25:55] should be 25 and then the rear should be

[25:58] 70 and it's 24 foot. It will not

[26:00] conform.

[26:01] >> The rear should be 40.

[26:03] >> 40. The sides should be 25.

[26:05] >> Sides should be 25.

[26:06] >> Is the rear

[26:08] the larger setback the 70 or is the rear

[26:11] the [clears throat] is the rear the 20?

[26:13] >> The rear would be the 244. I think the

[26:15] hardship is a very odd shaped lot in the

[26:18] hillside ordinance giving them 600 and

[26:21] something square feet to work with

[26:23] [clears throat]

[26:24] >> and the topography for the for the for

[26:26] the hallway you're saying.

[26:28] >> Yeah. And you know for the enclosing a

[26:30] garage or not enclosing a garage like

[26:32] doing any development there that there's

[26:34] a hardship

[26:35] >> is that the

[26:36] >> that I think we could work with them.

[26:38] >> I I agree with that. I I think that the

[26:41] though the form should be complimentary

[26:42] of the roof and especially because it

[26:44] doesn't conform to setbacks. Yes.

[26:46] >> It shouldn't be something that is

[26:48] dominantly

[26:50] >> the aesthetic side

[26:52] >> because the garage is dominating the

[26:53] house in the current scheme.

[26:55] >> You want that balance to be reversed

[26:57] ideally

[26:57] >> being actually a little lower.

[27:01] >> Yeah. I don't know if you could get the

[27:02] G like Stephen was suggesting the garage

[27:04] being maybe a little bit taller than the

[27:06] home. I don't know if you could do what

[27:09] you're suggesting, which is have the

[27:10] garage just a slight like a foot lower

[27:13] than the home plate height and then rise

[27:15] at the same slope. That would be a

[27:18] question just from a geometry

[27:20] perspective. I don't know if

[27:23] >> it's like a foot lower than it has a

[27:25] seven foot.

[27:26] >> Yeah,

[27:27] >> that's too low.

[27:29] >> It would be too low. If you match the

[27:32] garage to the slope of the house, does

[27:35] it even lower the street

[27:38] >> like side at much?

[27:41] >> Um, yeah.

[27:42] >> Like because the the street side is

[27:45] >> the taller end, right? And so you have

[27:47] to allow the appropriate space for the

[27:49] garage doors.

[27:50] >> I'm just wondering does it even bring it

[27:52] down?

[27:54] >> But of the existing home is very

[27:56] minimal. So you will see like I just

[27:59] have

[28:00] pretty much like a flat roof

[28:03] >> like the main house there.

[28:04] >> I think what Laura is saying is on that

[28:06] bottom right image which is the proposed

[28:09] >> if you did a slope that was parallel to

[28:12] the main roof it wouldn't lower the

[28:16] right hand side of that diagram. So from

[28:18] the stream appear the same.

[28:19] >> Yeah, that's that's what I'm trying to

[28:22] point out.

[28:23] >> Right. But it would look cooler from

[28:24] space.

[28:26] >> Yeah. From when they pull their car into

[28:28] the garage. But it wouldn't really like

[28:30] have impact on I mean

[28:33] >> that's a that's a fair point.

[28:35] >> I was busy focusing on the driveway so I

[28:37] didn't really look at it from the

[28:38] bottom. [laughter]

[28:39] But um

[28:41] >> yeah.

[28:44] >> Uh but so um Joey, you're saying that

[28:47] just because um the literal uh

[28:51] enforcement of the hillside in this case

[28:53] is so darn stringent that that's kind of

[28:55] the the hardship, right? because it's a

[28:58] irregular shaped lot that's super small.

[29:00] >> I would go for irregular shaped lot, but

[29:02] I strongly say that if it's the hillside

[29:05] lot is a hillside lot ordinance, right?

[29:06] Just because it's strict and they only

[29:08] have a tiny amount of square footage,

[29:09] that doesn't that's not a hardship.

[29:11] >> No, I agree with you. But regular lot

[29:15] size and the fact that now we're back to

[29:17] talking about the enclosing of the

[29:19] >> the hallway. The fact that that's on the

[29:22] back side with a big

[29:25] >> makes it benign, but does it make it uh

[29:29] what's the

[29:29] >> Yeah, I think we all

[29:30] >> But is it a smaller lot than most in

[29:32] this if you look at the map? Is it one

[29:34] of the smallest in the zone or

[29:36] >> I mean a similar project is the

[29:38] Wellington project that got a bunch of

[29:42] extra F. So

[29:44] >> go there. I don't go there. [laughter]

[29:47] >> I mean,

[29:48] >> yes.

[29:48] >> Yeah. I think there I feel like there

[29:51] has to be some sort of mechanism for us

[29:54] to be able to decide things that that

[29:57] increase the quality of life so

[29:59] materially for such a small

[30:02] architectural gesture that does not

[30:04] affect one person other than

[30:06] [clears throat] making this house so

[30:07] much better. So what is the mechanism

[30:11] >> for as for us as a group? I think your point of the I would say the lot

[30:17] shape and its restriction for growth,

[30:19] but I would say this doesn't I would say

[30:21] the the difference here is that it does

[30:23] not increase lock coverage in any way.

[30:25] >> It increases F, but not lock coverage.

[30:28] So it it doesn't increase the bulk and

[30:30] mass. It doesn't increase F, I'm sorry,

[30:32] lock coverage, which I think is a unique

[30:35] scenario.

[30:36] >> But Mark's point is right like your

[30:38] house would be the same thing.

[30:39] >> Yeah. Right. And but I guess we could

[30:41] >> there be no reason like if the town ever

[30:45] if it ever came up someone wanted to

[30:47] enclose my walkway.

[30:48] >> Yeah.

[30:49] >> I'd say look at this house.

[30:51] >> And I would I would I guess ask to maybe

[30:54] to all of us

[30:56] >> anything. Would that be terrible if they

[30:57] did that?

[30:58] >> It wouldn't it wouldn't hurt anybody but

[31:00] just like this, you know, first thing I

[31:01] said is it's

[31:03] >> not going to No one's ever going to see

[31:05] it.

[31:05] >> Yeah.

[31:06] >> Uh what about the egress angle? Does it

[31:09] help at all? No.

[31:10] >> It already has it. I mean, it doesn't

[31:12] make it safer. Thought it made it

[31:13] better.

[31:14] >> It's the same egress. It's already

[31:15] directly out of that other bedroom

[31:17] >> and it's already covered egress. It's

[31:18] just whether or not it has a wall next

[31:20] to it.

[31:20] >> Yeah. Thought that was a good

[31:22] >> If it says sprinklers, maybe it's safer.

[31:25] [laughter]

[31:29] So, I don't I don't I I can support I

[31:31] could I could say I could support this

[31:33] the extra 181 square feet based on the

[31:37] fact that it does not increase lock

[31:38] coverage. Um but I don't know what the

[31:41] finding is for it.

[31:43] >> But then every overhang, every covered

[31:46] anything

[31:47] >> you could people are going to start I

[31:49] mean remember how you used to not be

[31:51] able to enclose front porches. Actually,

[31:53] my rear porch is probably 20 by 15 and I

[31:59] could enclose that and it wouldn't

[32:00] increase the coverage.

[32:02] >> Remember the one on Hilbert that came

[32:04] back to us many times where they were

[32:06] saying it wasn't a poor they were saying

[32:08] it was covered.

[32:10] >> There's been a lot of things like

[32:12] >> it's still dilapidated.

[32:14] >> Yeah.

[32:14] [laughter] It's not going to be my

[32:16] issue, but you guys, if you start voting

[32:18] for covering stuff that's got overhangs,

[32:22] >> then anything that has an overhang in

[32:23] the town

[32:24] >> is essentially getting closed up when

[32:25] someone wants.

[32:26] >> Yeah, covered porch,

[32:27] >> which might be fine.

[32:29] >> No, it's a fair point. A covered porch

[32:31] is a much larger problem. The

[32:33] proportions of this, and we all, I

[32:34] think, agree it does not impact anybody

[32:36] or anything.

[32:38] >> But the precedent it could set is fairly

[32:41] >> well. I mean, there's us, you know,

[32:42] making these arguments, which we all

[32:45] think it's fine because no one's going

[32:46] to see it, but we don't know that town

[32:49] council would want to vote for it either

[32:51] because then they'd be setting

[32:52] themselves up for every month going

[32:55] forward, someone with a covered area

[32:58] wants to enclose it and increase their F

[33:04] doesn't increase lot coverage.

[33:07] >> So, we're on the we're [clears throat]

[33:09] in a conceptual design review. We could

[33:11] we don't we need to give some guidance

[33:14] but

[33:15] >> yeah we're giving guidance not a

[33:16] recommendation to council

[33:17] >> recommendation to council I guess

[33:20] >> my guidance would be on the F that

[33:25] it's usually not granted like usually

[33:29] they just don't grant F overages um

[33:33] especially when you're already over but

[33:35] even if you were under sorry even if you

[33:37] were on the line they normally would not

[33:40] do that unless there was some hardship

[33:43] that was unique. So, I think that's

[33:45] going to be pretty difficult to do. Of

[33:46] course, you could always submit the

[33:49] project like this and see what the ADR

[33:52] says at that time and see what the town

[33:53] council says at that time. And then if

[33:55] people don't like it, you could do the

[33:57] same project but without enclosing the

[34:00] walkway. And then you've got your

[34:02] covered walkway as you would have your

[34:04] worst case is a covered walkway

[34:06] >> or create a JADU or create an ADU.

[34:11] Because then you could do a covered

[34:12] walkway.

[34:13] >> Oh yeah.

[34:13] >> I mean, you get that square footage, but

[34:16] >> but it has to be But like then you're

[34:18] putting like a kitchen in there and like

[34:21] you have to have like all the things you

[34:23] >> downstairs change the project.

[34:25] >> Yeah, change the project. So you could

[34:26] get more square footage. You could swap,

[34:28] >> but but the square footage would have to

[34:29] be in the J. Oh, I see. Swap.

[34:32] >> You could create an ADU downstairs that

[34:34] is partly under the house, partly an

[34:36] addition. You know, you could just and

[34:38] then and uh

[34:41] >> I guess you'd have to take up part of

[34:42] the existing square footage as part of

[34:43] the ADU so that you could push

[34:45] >> swap. Yeah. So, we're essentially

[34:47] recommending you spend about a million

[34:48] dollars to get this 181 square.

[34:52] >> That's right.

[34:52] >> So, that how with a garage into a JU.

[34:58] [laughter]

[34:59] >> Yeah. If if you did a JADU, you'd have

[35:02] more square footage and and you could do

[35:03] a workaround, but then you're spending

[35:05] hundreds of thousands of dollars in

[35:07] order to cover the walkway essentially,

[35:09] >> right? That might be something you want

[35:11] if you want a slightly bigger house, but

[35:13] it might not be.

[35:14] >> You could essentially turn the garage

[35:16] >> into an ADU,

[35:18] >> right? I mean there there are there are

[35:21] ways to work in the ADU kind of world to

[35:24] make this work but it is definitely not

[35:28] as simple as what you're proposing.

[35:30] >> Yeah

[35:32] recommending that.

[35:34] >> Yeah. So I I think that does anyone have

[35:36] different recommendations or comments on

[35:38] the covered walkway other than it's a

[35:42] risk and it's probably not going to be

[35:44] you know my my point was you can try it

[35:47] but it's probably not going to be

[35:48] approved because certainly far less than

[35:51] 50% of people asking for extra F get

[35:54] approved in this town. It might be less

[35:57] than 10%.

[36:01] Yeah. I mean,

[36:03] >> and egress doesn't really mean anything

[36:06] because there's so many like everyone

[36:08] wants extra square footage near a door,

[36:11] >> right?

[36:12] >> Yeah.

[36:15] I I would think maybe the highly

[36:18] irregular sized lot could be

[36:21] >> But isn't that almost like how many

[36:22] hillside lots are square?

[36:24] >> I know. True. I think it's hard to get

[36:27] extra lot.

[36:29] >> It's hard to get extra square footage

[36:33] if you don't really have a hardship.

[36:36] >> That's sort of how it works here. And

[36:38] then there's this huge bonus if you do

[36:41] an ADU or a JD do

[36:43] >> right

[36:43] >> that where you can get a lot of square

[36:45] footage and it doesn't have to conf it

[36:48] does you know there's the setbacks are

[36:50] much more lenient

[36:51] >> but that's a whole another project.

[36:53] That's a whole

[36:54] >> that you can talk to Alex and the town

[36:56] about, but yeah, it's a whole different

[36:57] >> I do support enclosing the garage and

[36:59] making a a closed garage. And I I would

[37:03] say let's give guidance. It's too high.

[37:06] The way it's designed, it's too tall.

[37:08] >> I I'm actually very curious about is

[37:11] there any plan to try to make that

[37:15] driveway more navigable? Is that

[37:17] required of you, know, to make it actually where you

[37:22] can drive up it more easily? Is would

[37:24] the town require that for fire in

[37:27] >> No.

[37:28] >> getting a fire engine up there or

[37:29] >> when they don't meet the require there's

[37:31] a requirement for that the driveway be a

[37:34] certain slope for fire trucks and stuff,

[37:36] but when it doesn't meet code in its

[37:38] current condition, they don't make you

[37:39] change it if it's impossible. If you're

[37:42] doing a larger project, it might ask for

[37:44] a greater density of fire sprinklers or

[37:46] other things like that to try to make it

[37:47] safer for the occupants longer so that

[37:49] the time that it takes the fire people

[37:52] to go up the driveway on foot is

[37:54] accounted for kind of.

[37:56] >> I was just curious.

[37:58] >> That's right. So, if unless it's a 50%

[38:02] of the area, it's not going to require

[38:07] fire.

[38:10] >> Right. Right. Um, the hallway could do

[38:12] that. It's possible that would be fire's

[38:15] determination. I guess I just wanted to

[38:17] add when Game and Shelley Ryan, who's

[38:19] the property owner, came really the

[38:22] concern was the driveway and the way

[38:26] they're accessing the house now. And I

[38:29] do believe it's not something that needs

[38:33] design review, but you're going to try

[38:36] to

[38:38] um reconfigure that driveway, right?

[38:41] >> So maybe you can describe

[38:44] >> that in the plan cuz So it's not just

[38:47] >> Yeah, we don't have the actual design

[38:50] like settled down already, but yeah, we

[38:52] like to improve that condition

[38:55] >> by cutting higher up on the hill.

[38:59] moving it.

[39:00] >> Um,

[39:00] >> making a gradient radius, I believe.

[39:02] >> Yeah, swinging it kind of longer.

[39:06] >> Yeah, I don't think we have a say in

[39:08] that, but we'd support it.

[39:10] >> Thanks. [laughter]

[39:12] >> You'll like it more.

[39:13] >> Yeah, we do have

[39:14] >> We do have someone online that would

[39:16] like to

[39:17] >> Oh, speak.

[39:18] >> Yes. Hold on. Well, we

[39:20] >> What's conceptual? Uh, yeah, go for it.

[39:24] >> Yeah.

[39:25] It's the homeowner. Uh, David, can

[39:27] you can you hear us?

[39:28] >> Hi, I can can you hear me?

[39:30] >> Yeah, we can hear you. [snorts]

[39:32] >> All right. Well, thank you for all the

[39:34] um suggestions and I'm glad everyone's

[39:37] did survive that driveway. It is uh it

[39:40] is challenging. Um we are in the process

[39:45] of um working with some engineers to

[39:48] kind of come up with a a driveway that

[39:51] isn't so uh challenging where even the

[39:54] you know even the engineer was saying

[39:56] like the left side of the driveway to

[39:58] the right side of the driveway is such a

[40:00] slope he's never seen that before.

[40:02] Um so it is work in progress. It's not

[40:06] nothing is confirmed at this point, but

[40:08] we do, you know, we do agree. We have a

[40:11] 4-year-old daughter as well, so it's

[40:13] somewhat of a concern if she wants to go

[40:15] out and go down the driveway. It uh

[40:17] obviously in in the current state, it's

[40:20] uh not ideal.

[40:25] » And and this is Shelly. Thank you guys

[40:27] so much for all your feedback. Um, we

[40:30] know that it's definitely an interesting

[40:33] driveway and and property in general,

[40:35] but just really appreciate your time in

[40:38] the considerations and feedback. Um, so

[40:42] I guess we can work with game to rethink

[40:46] the enclosed garage and then um based

[40:49] off your feedback to decide if you want

[40:52] to move forward with also the enclosed

[40:55] hallway.

[40:56] Um,

[40:58] but it sounds like that could be

[41:00] potentially unlikely from this

[41:02] conversation. But just appreciate the

[41:03] feedback.

[41:05] There's anything else? All open ears.

[41:09] Thank you. So, why don't we do this? How

[41:13] about

[41:15] who here thinks the drive the garage re

[41:20] not? Let's not talk about the height

[41:21] right now. Just in general, it's okay if

[41:24] it's enclosed. Does everyone agree that

[41:26] >> yes?

[41:26] >> Okay. So, everyone agrees the garage the

[41:28] carport can be enclosed.

[41:31] >> Who believes the design for the enclosed

[41:35] carport should be slightly lower?

[41:38] >> Yeah.

[41:39] >> If possible.

[41:40] >> Okay. So, majority on that as well. And

[41:43] then does everyone believe that the

[41:46] extra F for the proposed sorry the

[41:50] enclosing the hallway which would get

[41:53] them further over the F would be

[41:56] problematic uh with the town council and

[42:00] president setting or do people support

[42:03] that even though we might all agree that

[42:05] it's not going to affect anybody else

[42:06] negatively but do most people think

[42:10] that's probably it's something they can

[42:12] try but it's probably not likely to get

[42:14] approved.

[42:16] >> Yeah, I mean I I agree with Joey like I wish that for these small amounts in

[42:24] situations where it doesn't

[42:27] like do anything to the neighbors. It

[42:30] just doesn't impact the neighbors that

[42:32] you could make kind of small exceptions.

[42:35] Um

[42:37] but it in my experience with my own

[42:40] project for um it [clears throat] was

[42:42] moved forward to the town council

[42:44] because we were trying to increase by

[42:45] like 62 square feet and town council

[42:48] wouldn't

[42:50] would not allow it. So, um I thought

[42:53] they had a hard line except for if

[42:55] you're increasing the garage space

[42:57] basically, but um

[43:01] so I would like there for there to be a

[43:05] way for this house to get a small

[43:09] increase, but I I don't know.

[43:12] >> It's tricky. So the majority thinks that

[43:15] it probably wouldn't be approved based

[43:17] on what's happened in the past with the

[43:19] town council and requests for extra f

[43:22] and this is just conceptual. So that's

[43:24] sort of our advice.

[43:27] >> Yeah.

[43:28] >> Thank you.

[43:30] Have a nice evening.

[43:34] >> Okay. Now uh information discussion and

[43:36] new agenda items.

[43:42] um information. So, we have on the Ross

[43:47] review and the town's front page a

[43:52] recruitment for the ADR since this is

[43:54] Mark Krishnet's last ADR meeting. I

[43:58] think we've gotten two applications so

[44:00] far [clears throat]

[44:01] and um the council decided that the

[44:04] process for that would be once we get

[44:06] the applications which are due on August

[44:09] 17th, we put it out for about a month,

[44:12] the governance subcommittee which is uh

[44:17] Mayor Prom

[44:19] Robbins and council member Dowling,

[44:22] they're going to conduct interviews and

[44:23] then make a recommendation to the

[44:26] council of whoever for the applicants

[44:29] that we get.

[44:31] Um,

[44:32] at the last meeting, you all decided to

[44:36] move forward with the pool exception,

[44:40] landscape features exception. So, we're

[44:42] working on that, but it has to go

[44:44] through um legal review and all that.

[44:46] And we have to get it consistent with

[44:48] all the other portions of the zoning.

[44:52] And anything else to add, Alex? I think

[44:55] those are the updates.

[44:58] Okay. Well, and I would like to add that

[45:00] it's been a pleasure these last 10 plus

[45:02] years. I think I've been on the ADR with

[45:05] uh you and others and with your

[45:08] predecessors and working with you has

[45:10] been a pleasure. And so uh thank you.

[45:13] >> Thank you.

[45:14] for your chairmanship. We do

[45:15] need to for the next meeting or we have

[45:18] to pick a new chair.

[45:20] >> Yes, we do need to pick a new chair.

[45:23] Mark, when were you when did you start

[45:26] on ADR? Is it 2017?

[45:30] >> I'm not sure. Okay. But it's it's been a

[45:33] long time. It was when there were at one

[45:35] point there were like 10 of us on ADR

[45:37] and we were we were rotating through um

[45:41] and it didn't really work that well

[45:44] because people would come and the second

[45:46] time they'd have four new people and

[45:48] they'd have different ideas. Uh, and

[45:51] then finally we got it. So there were

[45:54] only five of us and then it worked much better and that's probably been a

[46:00] good eight years just like with a

[46:02] smaller group, right? At least six.

[46:05] >> It had to be pre It was preco.

[46:08] >> So it had to be 18 or 19 if not earlier.

[46:11] >> Yeah,

[46:11] >> we all did it through co.

[46:13] >> Yeah.

[46:13] those meeting all the Zoom

[46:15] meetings

[46:16] >> those were pretty

[46:17] >> well thank you Mark for your service to

[46:19] the town

[46:21] >> it's been a pleasure

[46:21] >> nice to work with you

[46:24] >> and then I just if you don't mind have a

[46:26] little something to read as a thank you

[46:30] >> so [laughter]

[46:32] I just want to take a moment to

[46:34] recognize and thank Mark Krushnet for

[46:36] his outstanding service to the ADR since

[46:40] joining the advisory design review group

[46:42] in 2017. That's what we had in the

[46:45] records. Mark has generously volunteered

[46:48] his time, expertise, and thoughtful

[46:51] perspective to in the service of the

[46:54] town of Ross. Over the past nine years,

[46:57] he has participated in countless

[46:59] discussions and project reviews,

[47:02] um, helping applicants navigate complex

[47:05] questions while upholding the values

[47:08] that make Ross such a special community.

[47:10] The ADR was created to provide guidance

[47:13] on design, architecture, landscape

[47:16] design, site planning, building massing,

[47:18] privacy, neighborhood compatibility, and

[47:22] many other design related issues. And

[47:24] throughout his tenure, Mark has

[47:26] exemplified the collaborative spirit of

[47:29] the ADR process. He has consistently

[47:32] offered constructive advice, encouraged

[47:34] meaningful dialogue, and helped

[47:36] applicants and neighbors find practical

[47:39] and creative solutions to challenging

[47:42] issues. As we know, volunteer service of

[47:45] this nature often takes place behind the

[47:48] scenes and requires a significant

[47:51] commitment of time and energy. So for

[47:53] nearly a decade, Mark has devoted

[47:56] countless evenings to carefully

[47:58] reviewing plans, attending meetings, and

[48:01] sharing his knowledge to the benefit of

[48:02] this of the community. His

[48:05] professionalism,

[48:06] collegiality and dedication has

[48:08] strengthened both the ADR and the

[48:11] quality of development in Ross. And

[48:13] while we will certainly miss his

[48:15] expertise and thoughtful contributions,

[48:18] we are even more grateful for the

[48:20] lasting impact he has made through his

[48:23] years of service. So on behalf of all of

[48:25] us, thank you for your commitment, your

[48:27] wisdom, your nearly nine years plus of

[48:31] distinguished volunteer service. We wish

[48:34] you all the very best in the years ahead

[48:36] and hope you'll always know how much

[48:39] your contributions have been valued and

[48:41] appreciated. Please join me in thanking

[48:44] Mark for his service to the town of

[48:46] Ross.

[48:48] [applause]

[48:52] » Thank you. And on that I will suggest we

[48:57] adjourn the meeting.

[48:58] >> Journ.

[48:59] >> Second.

[48:59] Welcome

[49:02] >> the longest standing chairman we've ever

[49:04] had.

ADR Meeting July 21, 2026

Agenda

Transcript