soon.
» Hello.
I'd like to call to order the July 21st
meeting of the Ross Advisory Design
Review Group. Um, the first thing we
always do here is we open up to public
comment. If anyone wants to speak for up
to three minutes on any topic that is
not on the agenda, now is a time that
you may do so.
Okay.
>> No.
>> Shame no one
>> wanted to do that this time. Um the
first order of business is we will
approve the minutes from the June 16th
ADR meeting. Um I read those and they
looked fine to me, but if anyone has any
suggestions for changes or to second the
approval.
>> The approval.
>> Yep. No changes. Great. Okay. Now, we'll
start the planning and projects. Uh for
those of you that haven't been here or
don't recall, the way this works is for
each project, the town gives a short
introduction of the project and then the
owners andor their design team gives a
longer presentation during which the ADR
members might or might not ask questions
for clarifications.
Uh after that we open it up to the
public if anybody wants to comment about
any project. And then after that we
bring it back to the ADR so we can make
our recommendations to the town council.
And the first project is 92 Glenwood
Avenue.
>> Yeah. Uh good evening ADR members. Uh
tonight the applicant at 92 Glennwood
Avenue is requesting a recommendation uh
to the town council for design review
and a demolition permit. Uh this is the
existing uh house here.
Uh and it's and the project is proposing
to replace the existing siding uh I mean
stuckle uh with western western red
cedar shingles throughout the entire
house.
And that's pretty much it. And staff
request that the ADR group provides a
recommendation to the town council.
Thank you.
Is there anything you'd like to say
about your desire to put shingles on the
outside of your house?
>> If so, please step up to the microphone.
These meetings are recorded, so we need
you to turn on the microphone and um
>> Yes.
>> Actually, is it on? Actually, sorry. I
can hear you fine, but I don't I'm not
sure.
>> How about that now?
>> Great. Thank you all for being here and
for considering the project. We have a
older home built in 1931 that had some
deteriorating stucco and needed to be
replaced to prevent water intrusion. And
we also wanted to take the opportunity
to improve the structures wildfire
risk and reduce it, make it more fires
safe to protect the community. And then
Cam, I don't know if you want to add
anything about the materials and the the
scope.
Um, hi, I'm Cammy and we recently
replaced all the windows because um,
previous owners had um, put in new
windows to the existing structure and
they with the original stucco, it just
we had water damage basically all around
the house. So, replace them all with
nice casement um windows. And in doing
so, we had to we saw how much water
damage there was. So, we took off the
stucco and we were about to then put up
new white stucco. And in the process, we
thought, well, now that it's off to be
more in keeping with the town, we
thought that doing a natural wood
shingle might just help elevate it even
more. And so, that kind of opened up
this process.
>> Can you show us what
>> Yeah.
Shingles.
>> So, this is the um the company that we
found. We talked to the fire department
and I kind of worked back and forth with
Robera and Alex to find an appropriate
material that was still natural, but
they come on 8ft boards with fire
backing. And it's one of the only ones
approved on Cal Fire um for all WOOI
zones in California um kind of on its
own. So, it comes with like a plywood
backing and then a fire retardant and it meets all the buoy requirements for
fire zones.
>> Oh, that's great you're able to find
that. I didn't know that product
existed.
>> Um, does anyone have any questions?
>> I just I saw that your plan is to like
give it a year and see how it kind of
weathers and then decide if you would
keep it unfinished or sealed or whatever
or add or paint it, right?
>> Gray. So, it took me a minute to decide
what would be most in keeping with the
house, and I really love the natural
look. Um, the company does offer to
pre-stain, but I would I would my ideal
is to have it age in patina really
nicely and kind of have some browns and
some grays and have the nice white trim.
But if for some reason it didn't age
well in our location,
I believe that a light gray paint would
look also look really nice on our house.
So,
um kind of giving the option not
starting with paint, starting with
natural and then see how it ages over a
couple of years um and then take it from
there if if it would look cleaner or
nicer to be painted eventually.
>> Thanks.
>> Any other questions or comments? All
right. Thank you.
>> Okay, great.
>> Um, does anybody here or online have any
comments about this project?
>> There's no one online.
>> I have a question. So, Alex, a
demolition permit is required because if
you remove more than 25% of the exterior
surface, it's it's that constitutes
demolition. Is that right?
>> Uh, correct.
>> Yeah, we should change that, I think.
>> Yeah.
» Would anyone like to go first?
>> I will. I think it's a great idea. It's
going to be beautiful. I'm sorry you had
to come before us to jingle your house,
but I think it's great.
>> I'm pro.
>> Um, I'm also supportive of the change. I
think it fits well with the context of
the houses on your street and the
overall design aesthetic of Ross. So,
>> I agree with my colleagues and have
nothing to add. Ditto. Same here. Good
project. Right. Thank you. Good luck.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
» Okay. The next project is 98 Laurel
Grove. Uh good evening, Indiana members.
Uh tonight the applicant at 98 Laurel
Grove is requesting a recommendation to
the town council for design reviewing
and a nonconformity permit. Uh this is
the existing guest house here
and this is a site plan um showing the
guest house and the project is proposing
to expand an existing non-conforming
guest house by um by 396 ft increasing
the total floor area from 385 to 781 ft.
The addition will use materials that
match the existing guest house and main
residence. The project also includes a
new patio and a trellis and some
retaining walls. Uh next slides are the
north elevation here the existing and
proposed.
The east elevation
um the height is changing from 14t 11 in
to 20t 6 in.
the south elevation existing and
proposed.
The west elevation existing and proposed
and staff request at the ADR group
discuss the merits of the project and
provide a formal recommendation to the
town council. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Would you like to come up and
say anything about your project?
Hello, I'm Jessica Smith with Pski
Pearlstein Architects. Jared wasn't able
to make it tonight, but sends his
regards. Um, I'm here to represent the
guest house edition with owner Kelly
Dwinell's
and essentially the existing footprint
stays the same and we're expanding the
guest house by adding a level underneath
the existing finished floor. So, the
elevation of the upper finished floor
now stays the same. The roof um
elevation stays the same and the new
addition will occupy what was crawl
space and dig out part of the hillside
so that the new finished floor lower
level will be kind of at the same level
as the main house and will share a patio
so that they kind of better connect and
it's more usable. Um it meets all of the
uh the zoning requirements and is really
well screened from the surrounding
properties. Um the nonconformity is the
existing structure is about 8 in over
the sideyard setback. Um thankfully that
side has no neighbor next to it. It's
really the building is on the other side
of the next property and kind of the
more prominent facade is on the east
facade and that faces the existing house
and so you really only experience it
from the existing house and the existing
carport
or car court.
Um, and I think that's about it.
>> Can I can I ask a question? Is the
trellis in the setback then or
>> No, this the trellis is actually kind of
set in inset from the
>> Okay. Okay.
>> So, it stays outside of it.
>> And then I know we reviewed this project
years ago.
>> We're not We're just focusing on that
one.
>> Just this one area.
» Can I ask a quick question on the
impervious surfaces? There is a patio in
front under the trellis. Is that right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. I'm just seeing a list of no
change on impervious services on the
page two of the application.
>> What's kind of confusing as part of the
larger project happening on the site um
the drive court is is all becoming
permeable pa and so with that it's
offset this addition additional uh patio
in front of the the guest house. Got it.
>> Okay. Thank you. I I did miss that.
Thank you. Any more questions?
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Does anyone in the audience want to
comment on this project or anyone at
home?
>> There is no one online.
>> Okay. Um I'll go first. Uh seems great.
They're not going into the sideyard
setback. They're not putting pool
equipment in the sideyard. They're not
building a pool four feet from the
sideyard. They're actually building
something more or less in the middle of
their own lot. Uh, and they're not
increasing the footprint of anything.
So, seems like a great change to me.
» Yeah. I mean, I like the volume going
down into the earth. The roof line isn't
it's the building's not getting taller,
so it's not increasing the massing and
it
possibly visible from across the hill,
but none of your neighbors really are
going to be impacted by any I mean
besides construction by anything. So, um
yeah, I would be supportive of it.
>> Okay.
>> I'm also supportive of it. I think it's
a really nice design and the we always
have a issue with exacerbating a
nonconformity but because the
nonconformity is only 8 in into the
sideyard setback and this is actually
going down in the same footprint I think
that can be the findings why we would
allow 8 in. Uh I just think it's nicely
designed and I support it.
>> Yeah, I can concur. I do have one quick
question. the HVAC unit on the roof. Is
that existing or is that new? There's a
split mini split. Is that an
>> existing one? Okay. Yeah. Just I just
was curious. I saw in the drawings. I
can fully support this as uh drawn. It's
a nice project.
>> I agree. I have nothing to add.
» Now we will move on.
to the conceptual
advisory design review for 8 Morrison
Road.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh let me allow Shalley
to
» Oh, okay. Okay.
» Yeah. Um let me pull up the plants.
>> Yeah.
» Can you guys hear us? Okay.
>> Minutes.
>> Okay, perfect.
It's like it's like I have senioritis.
» Two projects in 13 minutes.
>> It is.
» Have you guys been by the residence? The
house?
>> Have you Have you guys been by the house
this morning? Today?
>> Oh, okay.
>> Yesterday.
>> Yeah.
>> I did not go up the driveway though. in
the driveway.
>> Yeah, [laughter]
» there's no way that could be constructed
today.
» It must be at least 14%.
>> Just in case.
>> Oh, nice. Thank you.
>> Oh, perfect.
» So, you're going to produce the project
first?
>> No.
conceptual.
>> Oh, it's on me. Oh, nice. Okay. Um, so
can you go to the next slide, please?
Um, so basically
the scope of work is just enclosing that
um cardboard.
Um, sheet A1.1 please.
Nice. Okay. So top left is the existing
condition and the lower right is the
proposed design. Um so we are proposing
to enclose existing carport into the
garage and then giving
um a connection
right here. That's going to be a new
hallway connecting
the garage to the house. So existing
[clears throat]
is
um open carport with a covered um
hallway but it's exterior to the house.
So we would like to enclose that space
as well. Um that's the gray area right
here. Um yeah, that's pretty much the the scope of work. And
um can we quickly go to the slide
um elevation A2.1? Oh yeah, this one is
good too. So as you can see the existing
carport [clears throat] has like very
low ceiling like 7 ft. Um for today
modern standard we would like to raise
it up higher. Um so that create um this
box right here but still taking the
shape and the footprint of the existing
carport. So we're not changing any um
lot coverage. Like if you look from the
top view down um you won't see the
change at all because the roof is
already there and only change will be
the height of the garage. Um yeah and um
we we're going to need a variance for
this project which seems because it's
already over the allowable. So that's
pretty much the scope of work for the
project.
>> Okay. Um I'm sure
>> they're really just requesting a
variance to the F and it's going to be
118 square feet to enclose that walkway.
That way they can connect the garage to
the house.
>> So the walkway that's proposed that
would increase the F because it's it's
pretty hard to get an a variance in
general for F. Uh usually they don't do
that. Um and in this case it's on the
back side of the house so literally no
one else will ever be able to see it
from anywhere. But is there any
precedent in the town for letting
someone increase F so they can have a
walkway between the garage and the
house? Because it seems like if the town
council voted yes for this, then there
are a lot of unattached garages or
semi-attached garages in the town,
including mine, where you could then
say, "Well, could shouldn't I be able to
go over my F to build a a covered
walkway or an enclosed walkway uh
between the two structures?"
>> Um, recently there have been a couple,
two that I know of. one on Allen. That
was because their entrance was on the
second story. So, uh, the ADR in the
town did support them to go over their F
so that they can basically have a first
floor entrance to their home.
>> Um, do you remember the address?
>> Yeah. 39.
>> 39.
>> Okay. And then the other one recently is
the one on
>> 103 Bolinus.
>> Yes. 103 Bolinus. All that was was a
closet. It was like 103 square ft or
something. And they really, you know, um
just needed some storage space. So, we
did let them pull out their rear. What
was it? Three or four feet. Seemed
reasonable. Everything there in that
area was already non-conforming.
So, there was really no way for them to
add without getting a variance.
Um, let's see what other any others
>> could be considered.
» Well, could you show us could you blow
up?
>> Yeah. Up there.
» We are looking for reasons to support
this findings to help to help you do it
so it won't set a precedent for future
applicants.
Okay.
» So, right now they can't go from the
carport to the house. They have to go
out and then walk down. Basically, it's
like a overhang of the roof. That's
really it. So, if it's raining or
something,
>> they're getting wet.
>> This increases F, but not lock coverage.
>> Not lock coverage,
>> which is kind of an interesting here
because it's all under the eve, right?
So that's a pretty unique scenario where
you're really and the bulk and mass is
not affected in any way, shape or form.
>> No. Well, I think I I want to talk
separately about the roof line of the
garage.
>> That's a different story. I agree with
that. But
>> but I agree that the that it's already
covered with a roof line makes it really
benign. I don't know how if that creates
a findings route, but
>> yeah, speaking just of the hallway, not the not the garage,
>> right? hallway has
some
>> other means of egress out into that
hallway. Right.
>> See, there's two there's another door
from that
>> basically moving that entry door.
>> Just moving the front door out.
>> Yeah, moving the front door out.
» Well, maybe uh the ADR members could
comment on Well, you can comment on
anything, but specifically break up the
project into two. One is whether or not
you think there might be findings for
increasing the F and another one about
the enclosing the carport and making it
a garage. Um it was like because like my
house also like we walk out a door from
the garage covered walkway for 10 ft
into our house and
we could enclose that and I don't think
it would affect anybody negatively and
it would also actually I don't it might
get us over the F at that point and it
would not increase the footprint
whatsoever because there's also there's
already a covered walkway there. So
there's probably other ones in the town
like that too, I'm assuming.
» Go ahead if you have some thoughts.
>> No, not exactly about findings. I just
think that it's like it's pretty benign
in its position. It's benign
volutrically. It doesn't hurt anybody.
The the F is so stringent because it's
Hillside in this case. just got a lot of
things going for it um that are hard to
meet literally with the code but that
are pretty fine under the kind of the
general spirit of the code here. Um and
so it's about I think for the hallway
it's about trying to kind of help find
the finding.
Um, but does but does the does the lot
face a unique hardship that is not that
is that others kind of don't face or
that that if it literal interpretation
would prohibit them from consider from
normal enjoyment that other people
enjoy?
>> I don't know, dude.
>> Not really.
Yeah, I struggle with the
>> I would like to support this, but I
struggle with the findings given that it
is
>> you're almost by adding this you're
almost double the hillside lot F
>> then you're supposed to allow which is
really restrictive as as Stephen said at
600 some odd
>> square feet very I I understand it's
really restrictive
>> but you're almost doubling it right with
this extra 180 square feet it's like you
know 1300 square foot home or lot
coverage or Sorry. F over the allowable.
So, it's hard to understand how we think
through that.
>> Maybe let's talk maybe let's move to
just some of the design of the carport
itself.
>> Yeah, let's let's talk about that first
and then we'll do the covered walkway.
>> Maybe uh Alex, if you could show one of
the elevations.
>> Uh yeah, thank you. You slide to the
right of that of that. Uh or just back
out.
>> I struggle a little bit with the height.
I understand the height of the current
carport is restrictive and you would
like to raise that up. Makes total
sense.
>> Unfortunately, the home is such a is a
low slung home overall. Raising the the carport now now garage to the to the
height that it you're proposing becomes
the dominant physical feature of the
project which you know in in from a
design standpoint I would prefer not to
see. So, I would love to see maybe an
exploration of you you have some, you
know, I call it, you know, have a
totally flat roof home. Is there a way
to minimize that garage roof so it's not
so tall maybe with a different roof
form?
>> I think following the slope of the main
house literally or if that's too short
at the left hand side of the diagram,
then doing an offset where it's exactly
parallel but offset by one foot
vertically would make it look like it
was designed in concert with rather than
as an addition. I think that's what I
was thinking the same thing like there's
a way to to infuse this a little bit
better into the into what the roof
structure is with the home without being
so tall. It does look even on the on the
facade looks a little extra tall. Um you
know that's possible with that idea like
um
like yeah we looked into those ideas
like have it lower and have it like
matching the slope or work together with
the existing home. But this scheme came
out just because um waterproofing is
easier for this scheme if you build it
up. So it gives you like the curve
height to work with the
>> Yeah. over the existing
>> over the existing. Yeah. Um so that's
just the construction method is it's
easier this way. But um yeah, we we we
can compromise and bring it down and
make it work with existing house as
well.
>> Does this garage uh I'm sorry conform to
setbacks?
I think so. Um, do you have the site
plan?
>> Do we The setbacks are not notated on
the the site plan. Is that right?
>> They are onet.
» The setbacks are here.
>> Oh, they're noted 24T, 23 feet, and 70
foot1. I don't know where the sides and
rear are and stuff like this. It just
notes.
>> Yeah. And I don't know whether those are
just current dimensions versus
>> the frontage is along the street which
should be 25 and then the rear should be
70 and it's 24 foot. It will not
conform.
>> The rear should be 40.
>> 40. The sides should be 25.
>> Sides should be 25.
>> Is the rear
the larger setback the 70 or is the rear
the [clears throat] is the rear the 20?
>> The rear would be the 244. I think the
hardship is a very odd shaped lot in the
hillside ordinance giving them 600 and
something square feet to work with
[clears throat]
>> and the topography for the for the for
the hallway you're saying.
>> Yeah. And you know for the enclosing a
garage or not enclosing a garage like
doing any development there that there's
a hardship
>> is that the
>> that I think we could work with them.
>> I I agree with that. I I think that the
though the form should be complimentary
of the roof and especially because it
doesn't conform to setbacks. Yes.
>> It shouldn't be something that is
dominantly
>> the aesthetic side
>> because the garage is dominating the
house in the current scheme.
>> You want that balance to be reversed
ideally
>> being actually a little lower.
>> Yeah. I don't know if you could get the
G like Stephen was suggesting the garage
being maybe a little bit taller than the
home. I don't know if you could do what
you're suggesting, which is have the
garage just a slight like a foot lower
than the home plate height and then rise
at the same slope. That would be a
question just from a geometry
perspective. I don't know if
>> it's like a foot lower than it has a
seven foot.
>> Yeah,
>> that's too low.
>> It would be too low. If you match the
garage to the slope of the house, does
it even lower the street
>> like side at much?
>> Um, yeah.
>> Like because the the street side is
>> the taller end, right? And so you have
to allow the appropriate space for the
garage doors.
>> I'm just wondering does it even bring it
down?
>> But of the existing home is very
minimal. So you will see like I just
have
pretty much like a flat roof
>> like the main house there.
>> I think what Laura is saying is on that
bottom right image which is the proposed
>> if you did a slope that was parallel to
the main roof it wouldn't lower the
right hand side of that diagram. So from
the stream appear the same.
>> Yeah, that's that's what I'm trying to
point out.
>> Right. But it would look cooler from
space.
>> Yeah. From when they pull their car into
the garage. But it wouldn't really like
have impact on I mean
>> that's a that's a fair point.
>> I was busy focusing on the driveway so I
didn't really look at it from the
bottom. [laughter]
But um
>> yeah.
>> Uh but so um Joey, you're saying that
just because um the literal uh
enforcement of the hillside in this case
is so darn stringent that that's kind of
the the hardship, right? because it's a
irregular shaped lot that's super small.
>> I would go for irregular shaped lot, but
I strongly say that if it's the hillside
lot is a hillside lot ordinance, right?
Just because it's strict and they only
have a tiny amount of square footage,
that doesn't that's not a hardship.
>> No, I agree with you. But regular lot
size and the fact that now we're back to
talking about the enclosing of the
>> the hallway. The fact that that's on the
back side with a big
>> makes it benign, but does it make it uh
what's the
>> Yeah, I think we all
>> But is it a smaller lot than most in
this if you look at the map? Is it one
of the smallest in the zone or
>> I mean a similar project is the
Wellington project that got a bunch of
extra F. So
>> go there. I don't go there. [laughter]
>> I mean,
>> yes.
>> Yeah. I think there I feel like there
has to be some sort of mechanism for us
to be able to decide things that that
increase the quality of life so
materially for such a small
architectural gesture that does not
affect one person other than
[clears throat] making this house so
much better. So what is the mechanism
>> for as for us as a group? I think your point of the I would say the lot
shape and its restriction for growth,
but I would say this doesn't I would say
the the difference here is that it does
not increase lock coverage in any way.
>> It increases F, but not lock coverage.
So it it doesn't increase the bulk and
mass. It doesn't increase F, I'm sorry,
lock coverage, which I think is a unique
scenario.
>> But Mark's point is right like your
house would be the same thing.
>> Yeah. Right. And but I guess we could
>> there be no reason like if the town ever
if it ever came up someone wanted to
enclose my walkway.
>> Yeah.
>> I'd say look at this house.
>> And I would I would I guess ask to maybe
to all of us
>> anything. Would that be terrible if they
did that?
>> It wouldn't it wouldn't hurt anybody but
just like this, you know, first thing I
said is it's
>> not going to No one's ever going to see
it.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh what about the egress angle? Does it
help at all? No.
>> It already has it. I mean, it doesn't
make it safer. Thought it made it
better.
>> It's the same egress. It's already
directly out of that other bedroom
>> and it's already covered egress. It's
just whether or not it has a wall next
to it.
>> Yeah. Thought that was a good
>> If it says sprinklers, maybe it's safer.
[laughter]
So, I don't I don't I I can support I
could I could say I could support this
the extra 181 square feet based on the
fact that it does not increase lock
coverage. Um but I don't know what the
finding is for it.
>> But then every overhang, every covered
anything
>> you could people are going to start I
mean remember how you used to not be
able to enclose front porches. Actually,
my rear porch is probably 20 by 15 and I
could enclose that and it wouldn't
increase the coverage.
>> Remember the one on Hilbert that came
back to us many times where they were
saying it wasn't a poor they were saying
it was covered.
>> There's been a lot of things like
>> it's still dilapidated.
>> Yeah.
[laughter] It's not going to be my
issue, but you guys, if you start voting
for covering stuff that's got overhangs,
>> then anything that has an overhang in
the town
>> is essentially getting closed up when
someone wants.
>> Yeah, covered porch,
>> which might be fine.
>> No, it's a fair point. A covered porch
is a much larger problem. The
proportions of this, and we all, I
think, agree it does not impact anybody
or anything.
>> But the precedent it could set is fairly
>> well. I mean, there's us, you know,
making these arguments, which we all
think it's fine because no one's going
to see it, but we don't know that town
council would want to vote for it either
because then they'd be setting
themselves up for every month going
forward, someone with a covered area
wants to enclose it and increase their F
doesn't increase lot coverage.
>> So, we're on the we're [clears throat]
in a conceptual design review. We could
we don't we need to give some guidance
but
>> yeah we're giving guidance not a
recommendation to council
>> recommendation to council I guess
>> my guidance would be on the F that
it's usually not granted like usually
they just don't grant F overages um
especially when you're already over but
even if you were under sorry even if you
were on the line they normally would not
do that unless there was some hardship
that was unique. So, I think that's
going to be pretty difficult to do. Of
course, you could always submit the
project like this and see what the ADR
says at that time and see what the town
council says at that time. And then if
people don't like it, you could do the
same project but without enclosing the
walkway. And then you've got your
covered walkway as you would have your
worst case is a covered walkway
>> or create a JADU or create an ADU.
Because then you could do a covered
walkway.
>> Oh yeah.
>> I mean, you get that square footage, but
>> but it has to be But like then you're
putting like a kitchen in there and like
you have to have like all the things you
>> downstairs change the project.
>> Yeah, change the project. So you could
get more square footage. You could swap,
>> but but the square footage would have to
be in the J. Oh, I see. Swap.
>> You could create an ADU downstairs that
is partly under the house, partly an
addition. You know, you could just and
then and uh
>> I guess you'd have to take up part of
the existing square footage as part of
the ADU so that you could push
>> swap. Yeah. So, we're essentially
recommending you spend about a million
dollars to get this 181 square.
>> That's right.
>> So, that how with a garage into a JU.
[laughter]
>> Yeah. If if you did a JADU, you'd have
more square footage and and you could do
a workaround, but then you're spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars in
order to cover the walkway essentially,
>> right? That might be something you want
if you want a slightly bigger house, but
it might not be.
>> You could essentially turn the garage
>> into an ADU,
>> right? I mean there there are there are
ways to work in the ADU kind of world to
make this work but it is definitely not
as simple as what you're proposing.
>> Yeah
recommending that.
>> Yeah. So I I think that does anyone have
different recommendations or comments on
the covered walkway other than it's a
risk and it's probably not going to be
you know my my point was you can try it
but it's probably not going to be
approved because certainly far less than
50% of people asking for extra F get
approved in this town. It might be less
than 10%.
Yeah. I mean,
>> and egress doesn't really mean anything
because there's so many like everyone
wants extra square footage near a door,
>> right?
>> Yeah.
I I would think maybe the highly
irregular sized lot could be
>> But isn't that almost like how many
hillside lots are square?
>> I know. True. I think it's hard to get
extra lot.
>> It's hard to get extra square footage
if you don't really have a hardship.
>> That's sort of how it works here. And
then there's this huge bonus if you do
an ADU or a JD do
>> right
>> that where you can get a lot of square
footage and it doesn't have to conf it
does you know there's the setbacks are
much more lenient
>> but that's a whole another project.
That's a whole
>> that you can talk to Alex and the town
about, but yeah, it's a whole different
>> I do support enclosing the garage and
making a a closed garage. And I I would
say let's give guidance. It's too high.
The way it's designed, it's too tall.
>> I I'm actually very curious about is
there any plan to try to make that
driveway more navigable? Is that
required of you, know, to make it actually where you
can drive up it more easily? Is would
the town require that for fire in
>> No.
>> getting a fire engine up there or
>> when they don't meet the require there's
a requirement for that the driveway be a
certain slope for fire trucks and stuff,
but when it doesn't meet code in its
current condition, they don't make you
change it if it's impossible. If you're
doing a larger project, it might ask for
a greater density of fire sprinklers or
other things like that to try to make it
safer for the occupants longer so that
the time that it takes the fire people
to go up the driveway on foot is
accounted for kind of.
>> I was just curious.
>> That's right. So, if unless it's a 50%
of the area, it's not going to require
fire.
>> Right. Right. Um, the hallway could do
that. It's possible that would be fire's
determination. I guess I just wanted to
add when Game and Shelley Ryan, who's
the property owner, came really the
concern was the driveway and the way
they're accessing the house now. And I
do believe it's not something that needs
design review, but you're going to try
to
um reconfigure that driveway, right?
>> So maybe you can describe
>> that in the plan cuz So it's not just
>> Yeah, we don't have the actual design
like settled down already, but yeah, we
like to improve that condition
>> by cutting higher up on the hill.
moving it.
>> Um,
>> making a gradient radius, I believe.
>> Yeah, swinging it kind of longer.
>> Yeah, I don't think we have a say in
that, but we'd support it.
>> Thanks. [laughter]
>> You'll like it more.
>> Yeah, we do have
>> We do have someone online that would
like to
>> Oh, speak.
>> Yes. Hold on. Well, we
>> What's conceptual? Uh, yeah, go for it.
>> Yeah.
It's the homeowner. Uh, David, can
you can you hear us?
>> Hi, I can can you hear me?
>> Yeah, we can hear you. [snorts]
>> All right. Well, thank you for all the
um suggestions and I'm glad everyone's
did survive that driveway. It is uh it
is challenging. Um we are in the process
of um working with some engineers to
kind of come up with a a driveway that
isn't so uh challenging where even the
you know even the engineer was saying
like the left side of the driveway to
the right side of the driveway is such a
slope he's never seen that before.
Um so it is work in progress. It's not
nothing is confirmed at this point, but
we do, you know, we do agree. We have a
4-year-old daughter as well, so it's
somewhat of a concern if she wants to go
out and go down the driveway. It uh
obviously in in the current state, it's
uh not ideal.
» And and this is Shelly. Thank you guys
so much for all your feedback. Um, we
know that it's definitely an interesting
driveway and and property in general,
but just really appreciate your time in
the considerations and feedback. Um, so
I guess we can work with game to rethink
the enclosed garage and then um based
off your feedback to decide if you want
to move forward with also the enclosed
hallway.
Um,
but it sounds like that could be
potentially unlikely from this
conversation. But just appreciate the
feedback.
There's anything else? All open ears.
Thank you. So, why don't we do this? How
about
who here thinks the drive the garage re
not? Let's not talk about the height
right now. Just in general, it's okay if
it's enclosed. Does everyone agree that
>> yes?
>> Okay. So, everyone agrees the garage the
carport can be enclosed.
>> Who believes the design for the enclosed
carport should be slightly lower?
>> Yeah.
>> If possible.
>> Okay. So, majority on that as well. And
then does everyone believe that the
extra F for the proposed sorry the
enclosing the hallway which would get
them further over the F would be
problematic uh with the town council and
president setting or do people support
that even though we might all agree that
it's not going to affect anybody else
negatively but do most people think
that's probably it's something they can
try but it's probably not likely to get
approved.
>> Yeah, I mean I I agree with Joey like I wish that for these small amounts in
situations where it doesn't
like do anything to the neighbors. It
just doesn't impact the neighbors that
you could make kind of small exceptions.
Um
but it in my experience with my own
project for um it [clears throat] was
moved forward to the town council
because we were trying to increase by
like 62 square feet and town council
wouldn't
would not allow it. So, um I thought
they had a hard line except for if
you're increasing the garage space
basically, but um
so I would like there for there to be a
way for this house to get a small
increase, but I I don't know.
>> It's tricky. So the majority thinks that
it probably wouldn't be approved based
on what's happened in the past with the
town council and requests for extra f
and this is just conceptual. So that's
sort of our advice.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
Have a nice evening.
>> Okay. Now uh information discussion and
new agenda items.
um information. So, we have on the Ross
review and the town's front page a
recruitment for the ADR since this is
Mark Krishnet's last ADR meeting. I
think we've gotten two applications so
far [clears throat]
and um the council decided that the
process for that would be once we get
the applications which are due on August
17th, we put it out for about a month,
the governance subcommittee which is uh
Mayor Prom
Robbins and council member Dowling,
they're going to conduct interviews and
then make a recommendation to the
council of whoever for the applicants
that we get.
Um,
at the last meeting, you all decided to
move forward with the pool exception,
landscape features exception. So, we're
working on that, but it has to go
through um legal review and all that.
And we have to get it consistent with
all the other portions of the zoning.
And anything else to add, Alex? I think
those are the updates.
Okay. Well, and I would like to add that
it's been a pleasure these last 10 plus
years. I think I've been on the ADR with
uh you and others and with your
predecessors and working with you has
been a pleasure. And so uh thank you.
>> Thank you.
for your chairmanship. We do
need to for the next meeting or we have
to pick a new chair.
>> Yes, we do need to pick a new chair.
Mark, when were you when did you start
on ADR? Is it 2017?
>> I'm not sure. Okay. But it's it's been a
long time. It was when there were at one
point there were like 10 of us on ADR
and we were we were rotating through um
and it didn't really work that well
because people would come and the second
time they'd have four new people and
they'd have different ideas. Uh, and
then finally we got it. So there were
only five of us and then it worked much better and that's probably been a
good eight years just like with a
smaller group, right? At least six.
>> It had to be pre It was preco.
>> So it had to be 18 or 19 if not earlier.
>> Yeah,
>> we all did it through co.
>> Yeah.
those meeting all the Zoom
meetings
>> those were pretty
>> well thank you Mark for your service to
the town
>> it's been a pleasure
>> nice to work with you
>> and then I just if you don't mind have a
little something to read as a thank you
>> so [laughter]
I just want to take a moment to
recognize and thank Mark Krushnet for
his outstanding service to the ADR since
joining the advisory design review group
in 2017. That's what we had in the
records. Mark has generously volunteered
his time, expertise, and thoughtful
perspective to in the service of the
town of Ross. Over the past nine years,
he has participated in countless
discussions and project reviews,
um, helping applicants navigate complex
questions while upholding the values
that make Ross such a special community.
The ADR was created to provide guidance
on design, architecture, landscape
design, site planning, building massing,
privacy, neighborhood compatibility, and
many other design related issues. And
throughout his tenure, Mark has
exemplified the collaborative spirit of
the ADR process. He has consistently
offered constructive advice, encouraged
meaningful dialogue, and helped
applicants and neighbors find practical
and creative solutions to challenging
issues. As we know, volunteer service of
this nature often takes place behind the
scenes and requires a significant
commitment of time and energy. So for
nearly a decade, Mark has devoted
countless evenings to carefully
reviewing plans, attending meetings, and
sharing his knowledge to the benefit of
this of the community. His
professionalism,
collegiality and dedication has
strengthened both the ADR and the
quality of development in Ross. And
while we will certainly miss his
expertise and thoughtful contributions,
we are even more grateful for the
lasting impact he has made through his
years of service. So on behalf of all of
us, thank you for your commitment, your
wisdom, your nearly nine years plus of
distinguished volunteer service. We wish
you all the very best in the years ahead
and hope you'll always know how much
your contributions have been valued and
appreciated. Please join me in thanking
Mark for his service to the town of
Ross.
[applause]
» Thank you. And on that I will suggest we
adjourn the meeting.
>> Journ.
>> Second.
Welcome
>> the longest standing chairman we've ever
had.