[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.