Are you in Mexico?
>> Yeah. No, no, no. Mexico is next week.
Oh,
>> said this week is LA.
>> Oh, that's right.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Actually, he is now. Yeah. He I at first
he said he wasn't going to be, but Yeah.
So, Mark Fritz is going to be here. The
only one that's not going to be Sutro.
» Sutro is not going to be I I put his
down.
» [laughter]
>> You were that busy, huh?
» Great.
» Hello. Uh, I am Mark Kuchnet um of the
Ross ADR. We're going to start the June
16, 2026 meeting. Um, the first thing we
always do, well, you can read our name
tags. We don't need to introduce
ourselves. Um, the first thing we always
do is open it up for public comments. If
anybody has anything they want to speak
about that's not on the agenda tonight
for up to three minutes, now is your
time.
Okay. And the second order of business
is the approval of the minutes of the
May 19th, 2026 ADR meeting. of two
people who were here should approve or
offer.
>> I have an adjustment I'd like to make.
There was um the project
on the hillside with the spiral stair.
It's the last one on the three Willow.
Thank you. Um there was a comment in
there that we recommended that the uh
parking pad that they were creating on
the upper side of the home be expanded
to two cars. I guess I was looking at it
as they could if they wanted to, but I
didn't want that to hinge on approval
that they expanded that to two cars. I
don't know how you guys felt. I just
thought it was an opportunity for them
if they wanted to, but I didn't want
that to to say that they had to do that.
>> Yes, I agree.
>> Okay. So,
>> condition of approval.
>> There you go. That that's the right way
to put it. I think they should do it,
but it's not a condition of approval in
my mind.
>> Exactly. I didn't
>> That's That's correct.
>> Okay. So is that uh an okay adjustment
to make on those ones? Okay, thank you.
>> Other with that I can approve them as no
as amended. How about that?
>> Okay, great.
>> Thank you. And now um just for those who
might not have been here before, but the
way this works is that for each project
we have and there are two tonight. The
town makes a short presentation about
the project. Then the owner and/or their
design team makes a longer presentation
during which the ADR members may or may
not ask questions and after that we open
it up to the audience for comments and
after that we bring it back to the ADR
for our recommendation of the town
council. Um the first project is 186
Prospect Drive.
>> Yes. Uh good evening ADR members. Uh
tonight, the applicant at 186 Prospect
Avenue is proposing a recommendation to
the town council for design review, a
non-conformity permit, and a variance.
This is the uh existing site right here.
And uh the applicant is proposing to
construct new landscape improvements to
the rear yard. Uh these include a pool
and spa, a pool equipment, patio, a
fireplace, an outdoor kitchen, retaining
walls, and to repair existing decks. So
this is this is one section of the uh
the rear yard, sideyard, and then this
is the uh the other side. Uh in addition
the proposed the project includes
winding the driveway with permovable
pavers and uh this is the elevation of
that fireplace and outdoor kitchen as
well as the uh retaining wall. Uh
variance is required to allow the
proposed improvements within the
required side and rear yard setbacks and
to construct retaining walls in the
fireplace over 6 feet in height. Staff
request that the ADR group uh provide a
formal recommendation to the town
council. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Would Brad or the owner want
to come up and make a presentation?
>> Hi.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, please go up there to
the microphone because they record these
and there could always be someone on
Zoom.
» Okay. Hi, I'm Michael Sherman, the owner
with my wife of 186 Prospect and
um let's see, discuss the merits of the
project and uh happy to answer any
questions that uh you have. We're
excited. We love living here and my
brother lived here has lived here for I
don't know over 40 years. So, it was
natural for us to move in here a few
years ago.
Well, actually, this would be a good
time if you want to actually present the
project and talk about it at all. Or
maybe you don't want.
>> I mean, I defer to I defer to Brad on
that.
>> So, usually, yeah, the way it works is
someone like Brad will make a
presentation and if we have any
questions, we can ask him.
>> Sure. I mean, I clearly let
>> we like getting to know you introduce
yourself.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Hi everybody. Brad XY imprints landscape
architecture. I just wanted Michael to
introduce himself and just he's never
been to this before and never been
through this process and I thought it'd
be good to have a face with the uh with
the project. Um hopefully you've been
out there and have seen the staking that
we did. Um you know, we explored other
options for the pool. We had it at one
point parallel to the house and it
really did not work. It got very close
to that property line. So, when we
designed this or when I designed this
the pool, I was using that 10-ft setback
that we've been talking about quite a
lot over the last 6 months to to make
sure all aspects of the pool are 10 ft
from the property line. And um so that
was a guiding factor with the pool. I
did speak with the neighbors today at 19
Wellington, the Reeds, and they're fully
supportive about the project. They've
been busy and out of town and haven't
didn't write a letter and were not
planning to attend tonight, but they're
fully supportive of this project. The
other the other um features of the
project include an outdoor fireplace and
a barbecue.
And part of the goal of the fireplace
and the barbecue is to provide
additional um screening and privacy
between the two neighbors. The Reeds at
19 Wellington have a pool immediately on
the other side of the fence and they
have some screening that's going to be
maintained and the oak trees are going
to be maintained and we're going to add
in um some additional English laurels.
But [snorts]
uh part of the goal was to use the
fireplace and the barbecue as additional
separation between the properties. Um,
the other improvements in just include
real minor adjustments to an upper deck
that's currently split in half and not
functional and adding a fire pit in the
lawn space. Um, and that is in that
space right there and a vegetable garden
up in that area. [snorts] We do want to
expand the driveway, make it permeable
pavers. the current conditions very hard
to back out and challenging to use. So,
um the owners would like to just make
that driveway a little bit larger and
use permeable paving material.
Um happy to answer any questions that
you might have and um hear any feedback.
[snorts]
>> Sorry, how tall is the proposed
fireplace?
>> Yeah. Can you
>> Yeah, it's uh 10 ft.
>> 10
>> um
>> from uh
>> from the back.
>> The back is 12'6.
>> Yeah.
12 ft
>> from here to here is 10 ft.
>> And I looked at that and I think that we
could lower that if you thought that was
a good idea. It was uh it could easily
go down to nine and it could even go
down to eight from the grade of the
patio. But part of it is like that fire
place is viewed from a deck that's up
about 3 feet at the house.
So it's it's definitely has a little
that deck right there is about 3 ft
taller than that patio. And [snorts]
that room looks out. So I didn't want to
be too low because then you'd be looking
at the top of the fireplace. And I
thought the fireplace would provide some
um privacy
as well. And Alex, is that also need to
be a variance?
>> Uh correct.
>> So under the current regulations, not
the discussed ones that might be in
place in a month or two, but under the
current ones, what would be allowed
there? Is it just something up to 3 ft
or
>> u? So, [clears throat] anything over 48
in of a retaining wall uh requires
designer view um if it's 6 feet or over
a variance.
>> So, up to six feet.
>> Up to six feet
>> without a variance.
>> Yeah.
>> And how far from the property line would
it have to be to not require a variance?
>> Uh for for walls, it's they have to meet
the current setbacks, which is 40 ft.
For retinium walls, it's not considered
a structure. So, um, so it's if it's not
considered a structure, then
>> what about the fireplace?
>> Fireplace is considered a structure, so
it would have to be 40 ft. Correct.
>> Okay. Um, okay. Those are my questions.
>> I think we we dashed in the 40t which
goes to the corner of the house
>> right here.
>> Yeah.
>> And it kind of Yeah. Right there. It
goes through that deck. And basically
the house was built at that 40 foot
setback line.
Any
questions?
>> Brad, you talked a little bit. You
mentioned you have some English laurel
plantings along the back side of uh
between the in the 10- foot buffer.
>> I see I think I see three. Is that
right?
>> Well, this is this is what we're allowed
to do at the fire department.
>> Like we would love to plant more and I
might be able to politic through that
because Ross Valley Fire does like
English laurels.
But in order to kind of get through this
process, I have to be 100% in
conformance. And so
>> is is there a center on center spacing
that they require?
>> Well, they have, you know, you have to
have certain spacing between each plant.
>> And um you're supposed to have equal
spacing between each plant as each plant
is. And then they have some pretty
strict codes. If you have certain amount
of plants in a row, you have to have a
big break in the plants.
So, but they do like English laurel, but
they at this stage they don't
distinguish between if it's English
laurel or a pitisporum or any other. I
mean, every everything I use is
non-pyrofitic for sure, but
and then a follow-up question just on
the location of the pool. You said you
looked at different locations. was
parallel to the northern neighbor mostly
in that existing
flat area. Uh an option where where you
rotate the pool 90° and get it mostly
out of the rear and sideyard setbacks.
Is that was that
>> Yeah, it pushed it right under that
really huge oak tree and it pushed it
into the shade and that oak tree is a a
major mess and drops non-stop acorns and
leaves and and then there's a catch
basin in that space
that um
there's a large catch basin on the other
side of that pool that we are trying not
to disrupt.
>> Okay. So, yeah, we looked at that and it
was really tight. It was because the
angles are such that it was hard to fit
the pool with a patio space and and to
fit it within that space and it slopes.
So there's a cross slope in that area of
about
um 4T 3 to 4 feet.
>> Okay. And my last question would be
around the driveway expansion along the
fence line. Is there I apologize I don't
remember. Is there existing hedging that
you're removing along that southern
fence line that
>> No, there's just a there's just a random
group of plants.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, it's not a hedge.
And the neighbor's house is pretty far
away over there. There's an oak tree on
the other side of the on the other side
of the driveway.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Um the I have one question for you. the
um non-conforming existing deck that's
in the front yard setback. You said it's
just getting modified slightly. Could
you just kind of show us what's changing
there?
>> Well, basically right now that deck is
there's a there's a step right in the
middle of it.
>> It's not equal. It's not even. So,
we're basically
going to get rid of that step so that
the deck actually functions as one
continuous space. And then we're going
to there's a really large set of wood
stairs that goes down to that patio
that's really bulky and awkward to use.
And we're going to put in a oversized um
metal step uh oversized spiral is what
we're showing.
>> Okay. And so the basically that front
portion of the the patio or porch face
is going to come up seven inches or
something. Is that
>> I think it goes down.
>> Oh, the back part of it is going to
>> The back the back part is correct. It's
at the door level, but then it steps up
and then it steps back down to the front
yard. I'm not really sure why they did
that,
>> but we're just want to get it all one
level.
>> Okay.
All right. Thank you.
>> Along that same lines, you have the pool
equipment underneath that
>> slab. It says it's a slab on it's on a
concrete slab. Is there are you doing
some sort of vault for the pool
equipment or what it's called?
>> No, there's a bunch of utility space
under the existing deck now.
>> Ah, got it.
>> And we're just going to put it within
that. There's a couple AC units and
there's a storage there's a storage um
shelf and there's a a hot tub over there
and all that's going to go away.
>> Got it. Thank you.
[snorts]
>> Joey, did you have any questions?
>> Oh yeah,
>> I have one question for um the planning
department. is the um
well actually it's for the next project
so never mind.
>> All right. Thanks Brad.
>> Um is there anybody in the audience
either here or at home that has any
questions or comments?
>> There's no one online.
>> Okay. Um so when the three of you
comment on this, I think it might be
helpful for the town council for you to
sort of divide up your recommendation.
One is just the overall project and then
specifically mentioning the variance for
the pool and the variance for the
fireplace
because those are sort of the three
separate things and it would be just
helpful to so they could get your
[clears throat] opinions on each.
>> Oh, who would like to go first?
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, regarding the overall project,
sorry, regarding the overall project, I
think it's really successful and I I uh
I had I've seen that house before the back landscape and it definitely
needs a reorg reorganization.
So, I think it that's very successful.
uh regarding the pool variance, the pool
location variance, I can support that
specifically in the light of the new the
new uh regulations we are discussing
that it would fall in the 10-ft setback
and it seems to be kind of the most
obvious place for that pool on the the
land. Um it can't be pushed any closer
to the house because of that corner of
the house. Uh, the last thing I would
address would be the fireplace. And I
cannot support that variance. It's just
too tall and too close to the property
line. And it wouldn't even conform even
with the new It's too tall. Uh, so I
think it would be great to find another
place to put that if you want it that
tall.
uh or lower it quite a lot so that it's
maybe just the same level as the the
barbecue.
» Um I can I'll go ahead. Uh yeah,
generally in support of most of the
changes in this project. Um but I agree
with the town planning recommendation to
lower the barbecue. Um, and even, you
know, we're designing based on a change
to the code that hasn't actually
happened yet, but hopefully we'll be
moving forward. But even with that new
change of the 10-ft setback rule, um,
technically for something up to 48 in.
So,
you you guys are I mean, this is above
that already because it drops two and a
half feet in the back. Um, but I I could
see allowing it for the countertop
height. Um, but I think the chimney
height
um
would would not be something that should
be approved based on the code.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah, I don't have any additional
comments. I agree with both my
colleagues here on those two comments.
>> Okay. And I agree uh on all three
things. overall project. Great. Uh the
pool, yes, because of what Joey said.
And the fireplace, no, because of what
Joey said.
>> Right. Um great. Uh thank you.
>> Question.
>> Sure.
>> If
we had like a fire wall feature that's
the same elevation, same height as the
barbecue, could that be a possibility?
Yeah, I think it's just the height is
the issue because even with the new
recommendations, I think things are
allowed to be up to 48 will be hopefully
>> uh up to 48 in. Is that correct, Alex?
>> Or is it 36?
>> Guess it's 36, but we'll review that
later.
>> So, whatever those new
uh
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. It's not that you can't have a
fireplace there.
>> [snorts]
>> So, if I made it the height of the
backsplash of the barbecue, which is
about 40, 46, 47,
I'm trying to figure out if I could do
just like a firewall with a seat in
front of it.
>> Yeah, it should be whatever the height
is of the because they're not even
passed yet. So, the town council might
actually in the end of the day say, "You
need to come back a month later once
we've approved this." But it should be
in line with whatever that height is for
the proposal.
>> Yeah. I started working on this about
six months ago when all this talk was
happening and immediately changed all
the design to meet the 10-ft setback and
I'm still not 100% clear about the what
is allowed within the 10 feet and not
allowed within the 10 ft.
>> It hasn't been.
>> Yeah.
Sorry. It hasn't been passed yet, but it
is under deep discussion and hopefully
should be
>> should be moving forward to the town
council.
>> Okay.
>> So, I think we'd all be comfortable with
>> it being whatever height ends up being
passed. So, if the town council passes
something that says it can be 36 or 40
or 48, whatever they end up passing,
then we're all fine with the fireplace
in that location at that height.
>> Okay. So for for the ADR, just as a
clarification, this project would
probably go to the July council before
the passing of the pool exception
ordinance. Um, [clears throat] for
ordinances, it takes a first reading, a
second reading, and then it's not
effective um for 30 days.
>> Right. And and that's what I was saying.
They might need to tell you to wait
until they might just grant the variance
or they might say you need to wait until
the thing has actually passed and then
your plan would be in accordance with
>> Okay. So, can we go to town council if
we make those changes? Yeah.
>> Yes. And in terms of the variance, just
to clarify,
um what would what
reason why the fireplace would require a
variance is because the structure is
more than six feet.
So in this case, if he did do it, the
height of the barbecue or that would
just require design review.
>> That doesn't
>> Yeah. And we're all fine with it as long
as it's not a
>> a variance. Variance.
>> Okay. Got it. Thank you.
>> Six feet.
>> So then six feet.
>> Okay.
>> But with
>> from grade with a two foot retaining
wall,
>> what you're saying?
>> Oh yeah. So then it ends up being four
because of because it's already elevated
by two feet. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I got it. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yep.
>> So it's four from the patio, but it has
>> So I guess 48 inches from the patio.
>> Yeah. Got it.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> So make that clear recommendation for
this one. 48 inches from the patio side.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. I got it. Okay. Okay. Thanks,
Brad.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. And the next item is 18, Sir
Francis Drake.
» Okay. [clears throat]
Good evening, ADR members. Uh tonight
the applicant at 18 Sir Frances Drake
Boulevard is requesting a recommendation
to the town council for design review, a
demolition permit, an ADU exception
permit, a non-conformity permit, and a
variance.
This is the existing site here.
Okay. Uh the project is proposing
renovations to the existing multi-unit
residence which includes two units, one
on the main floor and the second on the second unit on the second floor. The
project proposing is an interior and
exterior remodel to include replacing of
the existing sighting to horizontal red
cedar sighting. They also proposed to
convert the existing 600 ft attached
garage
uh to an ADU and transfer that square
footage to the existing lower level
storage area to ma to maintain that
existing second unit.
Additional site improvements include
reconfiguration and reduction of the
existing swimming pool as you can see
here. Uh also um a pool equipment and
construction of a new patio which is
located right here.
And these are the elevations of the the
proposed house
elevation,
north elevation,
rear elevation
and uh variance is required to allow the
pool equipment encroach further into the
front yard setback and to construct a
patio within the within the sideyard
setback. uh non-conformity permit is
required to construct the to reconstruct
the pool which is currently
non-conforming with respect to the
setback
and staff requests that the ID group
discussed the merits of the project and um provide a formal recommendation
to the town council. Thank you.
>> I'm sorry the second there was the pool
equipment and what was the other
variance?
>> Uh patio.
>> Patio. Yeah.
And would either of those fit our new
proposed definitions? It looks
>> No.
So even even under the more
accommodative suggestions, they would
still require variances.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Would the owner andor their design team
like to come up and present?
Oh, let me uh provide the plans real
quick.
It's a little slow. Okay.
» Where do you want me to go? Which page
do you want me to?
>> Um,
let's go down to a site plan. Yeah,
let's go down a little bit more. Uh,
keep going.
» Yep. Maybe we can minimize it a little
just to see both.
» No worries.
Um, I'll introduce myself while we're
dialing that in a little bit.
[clears throat]
I'm Jay Sherlock. This is Richard Mack.
We're architects uh representing the
owners.
And um, want to thank you guys for
coming tonight, of course, and
dedicating your time to this. And
definitely want to uh thank Alex and
Roberta. They uh work with us pretty
much every turn of the way.
[clears throat] Some of these properties
can be a little bit difficult. What this
one they can be a little bit difficult
and this one has proven to be a bit
challenging. Um maybe just a a quick
little introduction and then Richard can
talk about some of the variances or
other characteristics of the property.
But uh essentially we're just trying to
clean up the property. if you guys
didn't see it before. Um, it's pretty
beat up. Um, it's in a really dark
corner. I would say it's kind of I feel
like it's almost tucked in with a wave
of green kind of crashing on it. So,
it's a a dark kind of little uh danky
spot. Um, so we're just trying to clean
it up for the homeowners. Uh, make it
something that could look really nice in
the neighborhood. And it's keeping its
same shape. Um, we've taken like a
mixture of the materials and kind of
just brought it to a couple clean uh
pieces instead of just having a bunch of
stuff randomly all over the building.
Um,
let's see here. And and I think the main
part that we're doing is we're just
always, you know, as the job of the
architect, you know, uh, we're the
middle men here and we're just trying to
work it out between everybody. And that
that's why we appreciate working with
Alex and Roberta. Um it's it's been a
little tough as you know
there's a kind of makeshift unit at the
top of this and towards the end of the
project you know just doing whatever we
could to to help out um the town uh and
hopefully the clients a bit but um let's
see here. Essentially, we're just, you
know, again, removing some miscellaneous
walls that look like additions on
additions uh that, you know, probably
weren't permitted at all and a a
makeshift kitchen up at the top and, you
know, uh creating a real unit um instead
of the the rigged unit that was up
there. We've added an ADU down at the
bottom, you know, to help everybody, you
know, we'll just leave it there. Uh
reducing the pool. I think we're trying
to add a little bit of green space in
there. and um uh you know tucking the pool equipment away a bit, but uh in
general just you know trying to clean up
the property in the neighborhood and
then I'll let Richard maybe talk a
little bit about a couple parts.
>> Uh yeah. Hi. Um
you know, maybe I'll start with the
variance uh for the pool equipment. Um
just because the 25 foot setbacks
would force the pool equipment into the
center of the property. uh just makes it
a little bit kind of breaks up a
significant portion of the usable space.
Um and we're also trying to get the
whatever noise comes from the pool
equipment to uh to the towards the
street and further away from the homes.
Um
uh decreasing the size of the pool and
kind of pushing it um to where the steps
were uh towards the front of the
property is also again about trying to
maximize the usable ground space um for
the kids for you know just for daily
enjoyment um and also not to waste space
at the front of that at the front corner
of the property.
um moving the driveway and um and maybe
uh as far as a variance goes for the
patio, you know, we're really just doing
we there was a deck there above a
carport. Um so we're we're taking that
bulk away. Um and uh and just putting
down permeable pavers and uh or uh maybe
actually the pavers themselves. Uh I
can't remember if we're doing permeable
or not, but we're doing gaps in between.
>> Um so again, just trying to clean up the
house, trying to decrease and and cut
some of the excess mass um and make it
more usable. There will be two units on
that ground floor. Um it allows for
gathering space um you know, usable
potential barbecue space or or or just
um you know, gathering space. Uh and
then you know we did lose two garage
spaces. So we we uh expanded the
driveway just a touch on the right hand
side just trying to again use the space
wisely. Um the driveway coming in um and
providing three parking spaces all on
one side. So again we can maximize the
usable ground space um for the families.
Um
then
maybe maybe that's about that's about
it. Uh maybe going to the siding and the house itself. We are excavating and
lowering the house about uh 16 in or 18
in to get those the ADU and the second
unit on the ground floor. Uh but that
we're not raising the height of the
building. Um it was kind of a mix of
shingles, dark wood [clears throat]
shingles and si and horizontal siding.
Um and then on the ground floor. Yeah,
maybe Alex if you could go to a 3.0.
Um we'll start by looking at the
elevation.
Um
yeah, so that's and so the existing that
back left bottom wall was all concrete
anyway. And we we're kind of of the
architectural and structural belief that
everything kind of needs a grounding, a
solid base. And so when we um you know
think about the base of this building,
it's a big building. We want it to feel
secure. We want it to feel structurally
sound. And so we saw that opportunity to
continue the concrete look uh band
across the bottom and and give this
thing stability uh and then lighten up
as we as we go up into the sky. Um so
we're using stucco to do that uh rather
than uh and keeping the color of the
stucco light um in a pearl color. So
again, just trying to uh connect connect
it to the earth um and the the physics
that that come with it. So then we um
you know, we kind of had to choose
between the shingles and the horizontal
siding that was there. We chose the
horizontal siding. Um lower maintenance,
better fireproofing,
uh again the color, lower maintenance.
um feels feels warmer and actually
expands the gives you a feeling of
expanding the outdoor space. Um and
again just kind of trying to bring life
to this this home. It's uh it was
feeling dilapidated and and dark and
wet. And so we're we're just trying to
bring some some life to it. And maybe
that's about it for now. Happy to take
any questions or comments.
» Does anyone have questions?
>> Yes, [clears throat] I do. Uh, it was
hard to tell what was there before
because when I went today, I mean, it's
clearly sort of already been a lot of
demos been done, but
>> as far as the landscaping.
>> Yes.
>> Uh, was there a patio where the pool is
before? We there was a previous permit
where they they removed the patio um
that was connected to a stair. Um and
we have pictures. Yeah.
>> So what I'm I'm trying to figure out
you're asking for a variance for the
patio.
>> No figure out if a patio was there.
>> We actually didn't file a variance for
the patio. Um we just filed a variance
for the pool equipment. Alex, is that
» parking spot?
>> It was a carport with a deck on top.
>> Yes. This was all concrete.
» Got it.
So again, just cleaning it up.
» So instead of concrete, we'll just have
the pavers and turf.
» Got it.
>> Along those lines, what are we talking
about? And this is to the planning. What
are we talking about necessity for
covered parking here on this site?
Can you repeat that?
>> A covered parking.
>> Yeah.
>> Requirements here.
>> Uh for this one, it's a one covered
parking, but since they're converting
the ADU, they don't have to meet.
>> So, no covered parking at all for the
entire project.
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. Now, maybe I could um This all
kind of came about late not having a
parking space in the garage uh with the county pushing for the second
unit. Um so, we've worked with Alex and
Robera and the client to to keep the
second unit on the ground floor by
converting the garage to an ADU. Um so,
we did lose that covered parking. the
client would like covered parking, but
there's no way to do that because we
we'd have to build additional space. So,
if there's ever a future um lightweight
carport uh that would be approved, we
would the client would would explore
that.
>> If it's not required, that's I was just
looking for what are the typically we
see some level of requirement for cover
party.
Laura, Joey, do you have any questions?
» Well, just that same future patio space
um to the north of the building that we
were just talking about. So, that was
paved to get to that illegal garage
space, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it was like it was a
covered carport kind of illegal roof
deck
>> and uh
>> and so took away the asphalt or they
want to take away the asphalt and the carport.
>> Okay. So, the covered carport's gone and
it's
>> there's a retaining wall like further
back basically.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's been there the whole time.
>> The retaining wall has been there the
whole time and then we're just
>> Okay.
>> stepping the patio a few feet away from
that retaining wall. Okay. So, all of
these like elevated surfaces that
usually are not really encouraged or
existing, right? Like that balconies and
that terrace yard space. Okay.
>> Yes.
» Yeah. If any space has been taken at all
here
is
might see it better in the middle
picture. Yeah. Mark, do you have any
additional questions?
>> I don't think so. No.
>> Okay. Uh, thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Um, I'd like to open it up to the
audience. Would anyone in the audience
like to make a comment?
» There's no one online.
>> Right. We have we have an actual
in-person comment.
>> Hi. Hi, everybody. Um, my name is
Beverly Domet
and I am the owner. That's my husband of
uh 20 what was 20 Sir Francis Drake. to
the north side lion neighbor for this
project and it has definitely expanded
since we first talked to the owner. Um,
so I guess I'm understanding now there's
three units here,
>> right? Okay. And there's three parking
spots. And I just also want to mention
that, you know, there is not a lot of
parking on Sir Francis Drake. When
people park in front of his property, in
front of mine, it makes it impossible to
get in and out of our driveway. We
cannot see teen drivers. Recipe for
disaster. So, I just would like to lodge
my concern that there's not enough
parking on the property for three units
and that third unit was pretty recently
added. So, I hadn't I wasn't aware of
that. But, I'm grateful this project is
happening and that this is getting loved
back to life. It was 100% an eyesore and
it's great. Um, I do have concerns that
I have uh raised with the homeowner over
these last weeks about what looks like a
deck
um coming over the at the uh lot line
and which is about 12 to 15 ft above the
ground. Um, and I'm mentioned to him I'm
nervous this is going to turn into a
deck and I want to lodge my concern here
because it would literally just be
looking directly over into our property.
Um, and I don't think that it's in
keeping with town standards to have uh
second story decks uh overlooking town
property. So, the plans show an existing
condition of a flat roof with a door
coming out
to what was the second unit, which is
the very upstairs. So, the very tiptop
was its own unit. There was a door for
egress. That makes sense. Now, it's the
master bathroom. And that whole section
of roof
that comes off of that door used to be
sloped. It was a sloped roof that had
drain pipes and now it's flat. And so
when I saw this, there's because there's
a lot of construction been happening
over the course of these weeks before
any discussion really happened with us.
So, we grabbed a picture of it from our
property to demonstrate tonight and to
send to Ross and just be like, I'm a
little concerned that this is turning
into a deck. And he said, don't worry, But we all know that if
there's a beautiful flat space out with
a door leading from the master bedroom,
there's a lot of potential for a deck.
And the existing condition was not a
flat roof. the existing condition was a
sloped roof. So, I just want to kind of
understand
what might be a concern of mine and see
if it's a concern of anybody else's.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, can I ask you a question? So, the
existing flat roof that is called out as
existing flat roof, it was not flat.
>> It was not. And you can see in the
pictures that it was um sloped for
drainage. So sloped enough that you
couldn't put furniture on it. If you
want to pull up the photos.
And then my husband emailed a picture of
what it looks like now
if you want to throw that up as well.
» Oh, okay. Well, we can provide it. So,
do you want to point out the spot on the
photo?
>> Oh, is that it there
>> in the upper right? Is that what we're
looking at?
>> Oh, I saw it on the planning.
This is
when you look
from the shingles
on current
it
flat. So that's my concern. Um
and I know how things happen once it's
built. Really hard to undo
um a condition.
>> Okay. Uh thank you.
>> Um so then actually I would like you to
address this because the owner or the
your team because uh if the existing
condition
was actually or the pre-existing
condition was sloped and now it's flat.
And Beverly is correct in that we always
oppose second floor decks and yeah, we
don't want a second floor deck there.
Well, I don't mean to speak for
everybody else, but knowing them, I'm
pretty sure. Um,
so has that condition changed and what
could be done to prevent it from being a
deck with a door leading out to it as it
seems to be proposed?
>> We can address all of that. Um, so first
of all, the
uh it's a walkway essentially. It's a
egress walkway out of the top floor.
there's um not enough egress out of the
building, but there used to be what's
called a butterfly roof, if you guys
know. So, it doesn't look that steep
there, but it was steeper um than this.
So, they're correct. It was a It had a
nice little pitch to it. Um and on a
previous permit, that was changed. So,
uh the uh height limit on the space, the
butterfly roof that was there, the
interior conditions, um that roof was
just made one nice flat shed roof. And
that is a walkway with guard rails on
the side. So, you'd have to rip up the
guard rails to make a deck to walk on
the deck. But, it is a flat roof now.
This currently it has been changed to a
flat roof. That's for sure. And where is
the walkway? If you go to the site plan.
>> So, but it's now sorry inside just
inside that door is the master bathroom
proposed.
>> Yes, the m master bathroom is right.
>> It's like it's like
it goes out to what?
>> The backyard
>> or the terraces. So if that was a
>> little
>> So if that was a window instead of a
door, uh, and windows are most common
way of egress out of a bedroom for fire
hazards. Um, like my bedroom doesn't
have a second doorway going to the
outside, but it has windows and so the
fire department thinks that's fine. So,
it seems like if that proposed door, I'm
just thinking out loud, was changed to a
window that opened, then there would be
egress satisfying the fire department,
but someone wouldn't be using that as a
walkway because we don't even like uh
and you know the difference between a
walkway and a deck, you got people on
them. So, if we don't want a walkway on
the second story, then that could just
be changed to a window and it would
still provide egress. And the rest of
the plan would still be the same except
you'd be looking at a window instead of
a door. Uh if it had if the door even
has glass on it.
>> Yeah.
>> So we'd have to go back and change
another permit.
>> It's already been permanent. The reason
it's existing is because it was
previously permitted as a walkway. There
was an existing door there.
>> So it's not just about egress. It's also
about accessibility. If you're on that
top floor, you'd have to go downstairs
around the building to get to the
backyard. And so we permit as a pathway
to the to the open space. Uh and it was
permitted um and there's a a steel or
metal guard rail uh and a walkway. Um
and no intention from the owner to to
make a roof deck.
>> And is that roof what is the material of
the roof now? Or what is the proposed
material of the roof if
>> it's already it was uh proposed as
asphalt? I believe it's all bitamine.
bitchmen.
>> Um,
>> and but there is a railing at the front
of the roof that is not a balcony. That
is not a
>> The roof has no railing. You would fall
off. It's dangerous. Um, the deck the the Yeah, again the roof has nothing
on it. That walkway has railings on it.
>> And then just a a a little tip um as we
see a lot of illegal builds and red
tags. If we don't have the bridge on it,
that's going to be a deck. By putting
the bridge on it and putting the
railings on it and committing to the
construction and ripping up the roof and
the waterproofing, it is going to be
much harder to make that a deck than if
there was a window and you just pop the
door in and use it as a deck. This is
typically what happens. So, just letting
you know, we actually control that by
putting in the structure. And this we've
just seen over time. Um, but the like I
said from the beginning, we are looking
to make everybody happy. We can we can
mitigate this even more. Can we put a
green screen on that and it grows up
nice and even on the little piece and
then nobody can be seen walking by. You
know, whatever we can do to help with
that, put a tree between or some foliage
or maybe planters on the edge of the
roof. We would love to do that. We're
not trying to encroach on privacy.
>> Uh yeah. So, sorry, just thinking out
loud. It's obviously it's an already
permitted walkway on the roof. Yes.
where if it came to us, we probably
wouldn't want that, but it is there and
it's permitted. So, I think putting a
planting uh there to screen that would
be a very nice gesture. Uh
yeah. Yeah.
>> And we'd be open to even more
conversation about it, but I think that
could be the first uh piece of the uh
resolution or, you know, help making
everybody comfortable.
>> Okay. Um, sorry. Are there any questions
on that from anyone?
>> No, not on that. Not on that point.
>> Okay.
Thank you for clarifying that.
>> You don't want to cause any feedback.
So, I'm trying to
>> questions of Alex.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, so Joy has a question for you.
>> Alex and Robera.
>> For three units, how many parking spaces
are required?
So they had two units existing, one at
the very top and then one on the main
level. They need to maintain those two
units. To do that, they're basically
converting the garage
to then be able to transfer that to
create that second unit on the bottom.
That way they're not losing the units
that are existing and in a way they're
also creating an ADU. So that's another
unit. um the ADUs
because it's a conversion of an existing
space um there's no parking requirement.
>> That's right.
>> They're within a mile of public transit
which they are.
>> Yeah.
>> So that's if they weren't then they
>> good point need to provide
>> parking in this case if they wanted no
parking they could they wouldn't be
required any parking spaces.
>> Okay. Okay. Okay, good to know. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Um Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.
[clears throat]
>> So, my name is Mark Converse and I live
on the other side at 16 Sir Francis
Drake and I've lived here for in Town
Ross for 15 and a half years. Um, and I
agree with Beverly that it's great to
clean that uh property up. It was in bad
shape. Hadn't been worked on since the
70s. lot of it's old and dilapidated,
but um um it's and I've been in pre
frequent contact with Ross since he
bought the place, uh the owner. Um and
I'm pretty surprised to find out tonight
that they're planning on three units.
Uh I'm really upset that's three units.
I don't think that's right. Um that's a
small lot. It was cut out of a lot in
1911. They built the house on it in
1912. It was subdivided from the lot
behind it. and three units is it's a
pretty small lot for three units
especially given there's very little
park on Surf Francis Drake. Um so I
don't know what the whole process is the
town. I'm sort of familiar with it but
um I'm Is this the final approval for to
go forward with all the construction?
>> No, this is a recommendation to the town
council. Okay.
>> That we make whether or not a project be
approved and then the town council uh
which will then see the project one or
two months from now. Then they vote on
it and then if they approve something,
construction goes forward.
>> So if you tell if tonight you do give
approval, it goes to the town council
for approval. Is that correct?
>> Yeah, we we recommend it either for
approval or not for approval or
sometimes as you saw previously, we
might recommend part of the project for
approval and not another part. Um so um
but one thing that we do not have
control over here and we don't even have
the authority to recommend or not
recommend is how many units are on a
property. So there's a the state of
California has ADU laws and we do not
make recommendations on whether or not a
lot can have uh ADUs or second
structures. Second, um,
inhabitations. So, uh, the architects
said they want to make people happy. Uh,
three units will not make the the
neighbors happy. Um, you guys want to
work with us, that's that'll not be
that'll make us very very unhappy. Like
on a scale of 1 to 10 be about 27.
>> So, take the mic.
>> What's that? I've got another question,
too. When you guys did all the work in
the back, did you get a hydraological
report for all the uh before you built
all those? And if so, where could I
review those? I'm a civil engineer. My
background is history. Do you guys do a
hydraological report or just do a
>> Okay. And can I see those or where could
I review those?
>> Uh you can talk to the town staff and
you're available to see Okay.
>> anything that they are allowed to give
you.
>> Okay. Well, I
>> and all of those documents uh any civil
engineering documents will be available
to the public when a project goes up to
the uh town council also. Okay. Um Okay.
Um so, um yeah, I think there's I think
there's a lot of issues here that uh I
think I don't think it fits with the
town of Ross, the nature of the town. I
think it's going against the kind of
nature of the town. Um so, yeah, you're
Disney this name will not be happy. So,
I'd like to see what you can do to
>> you don't you don't need to answer his
comments.
>> Well, I could I could just give it a
little try. Um
uh one, I feel you. I really do. I'm
part of the community and um you know
there's not enough parking. There's not
enough street width. Um luckily they are
opening up the curb a little bit. Um
that's looking really good right in
front of the house. But um there's a lot
of politics involved here. I would love
to talk to you a little bit about it of
course. Um, but you know, we're all
working together and um, let's go ahead
and meet and and try to, you know, talk
about it as much as we can. You know,
it's it's a state mandator state
mandate. Um, uh, and there's just a lot
going on with it. We're we're surprised,
you know, these things.
>> Okay. I know you two can take this
offline because this is
>> not the venue for neighbor conversations
other than just the
>> three minutes you can comment on a
project.
>> Thank you for your time.
>> Is there anyone else in the audience who
would like to speak?
>> Okay.
>> Someone online.
>> No, there's online.
>> Great. Okay. Uh who would like to go
first on this? And once again, um, it
would be great if you discuss both the
pool equipment variance and the patio
variance separately
aside from just the overall project.
» I'll make some comments. Um,
>> I I like the idea of pulling the pool
back. I think that's kind of fine. Um, I
think there's probably an opportunity to
pull that patio space that's was pri pre
the carport to pull that away from the
property line a little bit. I think, you
know, there's there's an opportunity to
pull that back, provide some some relief
to that um neighbor on that side. Um, so
I don't really I don't I know it's
existing quote unquote, you know, as a
parking pad prior to the carport, but I
think if we're going to see it as a
different use case, right, it's not
parking anymore. Now it's gathering
space. I think there's an opportunity to
pull that back. So I would like to see
that come back maybe be up five feet
from the property line, put some
planting there, provide some relief. Um
I'm a little bit torn on the the
location of the pool equipment. You
know, generally I I don't think putting
it towards a public sidewalk and a
public street is a really um community
solution, right? and instead of pushing
it to the boundary of the property line
and burdening others, bring that inbound
into the property where it can be
properly soundproofed. I don't exactly
know where I would recommend that, but
maybe associated with that with the
building itself adjacent to that parking
or the patio that is now a patio. So
maybe there's something we could do to
pull that away from the street front
because there is a sidewalk right there
and you know it's the the proposed
location is probably about five to to 8
feet from that sidewalk. So, I'd like to
see that relocated away from the public
sphere and into the um into the
property. However, I do recognize it's
Sir Francis Drake. It's a pretty loud
street. So, I'd love to hear my
colleagues opinion on the on the pool
equipment.
Uh I think I have some comments on
[clears throat] the material choice. Um
I recognize they're going for sort of a
white and a black window scheme.
Not a huge fan of the bright white. Uh,
I'd love to see that brought down
five shades. Not just a little bit, but
actually bring it down. I recognize it's
a dark home right now and it does need
to be brightened up. But, uh, in
general, we try to avoid putting white
boxes on hills and, um, it, you know,
everything being white, the stucco being
white, the siding being white is a
little much. Uh, I would also maybe
recommend, I like the idea of the sort
of two materials to have a base. Uh, the
stucco I think could even go darker than
the main house material. So provides
something that not only looks a little
different from a base but also is a
different color.
Uh and I think those we just check
there also the black stained fence.
I'm torn. I'm not sure that's in keeping
with kind of that street front, but I'd
also like to hear my colleagues opinion
on that. Um I get it. it kind of it's
trying to tie into this sort of call it
lack for a lack of a better term
farmhouse look um you know throughout
the project but not sure how I feel
about that. So those are my comments.
>> Is there a particular shade or color you
would
>> I probably just you know look for it to
be a a more natural color a brown
something that just fades away versus
painted black. That would be my problem
probably my recommendation.
>> Thank you.
>> You want to go?
>> Um sure.
I
for the uh pool equipment that is at the
front yard set back five feet from the
property line. Um normally that would
not be allowed uh or encouraged, but I
could see a variance for that in this
situation because it's Sir Francis
Drake. It's a six- foot tall fence. um
is it and if it's enclosed in something
that's soundproofing it some um I I
could support a variance for that um
based on the
uh layout of the house and the
topography and um the the shape of the
lot and mostly just that it's on Sir
Francis Drake uh for the
Yeah, I looked through all the changes
to the windows and
seemed like most of the additional
windows were down at the lowest level.
So, not really a huge private privacy
concern. Um, I saw on that third floor
front balcony, you guys added a screen
and the direction that's towards Bev's
uh property. So, that's an improvement.
Um, but I think the main Oh, and then
the the patio at the lower lowest
yard level. Um,
yeah, I mean, even the new 10-ft rule
that we're starting soon is 10 ft and
that's like just all the way up to the
property line. So, I guess I would agree
with Mark that, you know, maybe consider
pulling it pulling it back five feet um
for those lower pavers.
And
uh the I think the the main thing that
was concerning to me, I went to the site
right before coming here and it was
already locked. Um, so unfortunately I
reviewed it by sticking my phone up over
the fence and taking some photos and I
didn't have time to kind of go up that
road that goes up behind the property to
see it from that perspective. But with
what I saw, it's
if I guess the the big concern would be
if that
roof spa or patio um
if the roof space the flat roof the new
flat roof that's under a different
permit is occupiable that is like
looming over the neighbor's yard right
touching the property line that would
never be allowed. So just to ensure
there's a way that this can be
controlled. So it is not occupiable
space. Um that [clears throat] would be
the main thing that I'm concerned with.
Um in terms of the materials,
the design guidelines do encourage more
natural colored materials, but there's
definitely white houses in town. So I
mean,
you know, it's a dark area. Uh I don't
know how visible it is from the street.
I don't feel strongly either way on
that. So thanks.
>> Okay. I'll try to address uh some of the
comments my colleagues have already
made. Um as far as the patio is
concerned and that variance, I also
agree that it should be pulled back. Uh
it's existing but it's a new use. So, I
would think pulling it back five feet
and uh including some nice planting
there, as Mark suggested, would be an
excellent idea. Um, regarding the pool
equipment, I I have one clarification
question. How far is a proposed location
from a neighbor's lot? Is it in the more
in the center?
Okay.
» Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure
it wasn't like in the corner. Okay. Got
it.
>> Thank you. Um, yeah. So, I'm actually
fine with it being close to the street
only because it's Sir Francis Drake, but
if it was literally any other street in
town, I would say pull it next to the
house. Um, I agree with Mark that I
think the tone of the white should just
be lowered. I think it would look nicer
and I like his design suggestion of a
somewhat darker base I think would be a
good thing to explore. I think you'll be
happier with the result because of it.
Um, I also think the fence would be
better a more natural color. Uh, even if
it's painted brown or just actually
natural wood, which will then just wear
over time and it's easier to maintain
because you don't have to repaint it
after 3 to 10 years. Um, I also agree
um that it's important that the potential deck never be a deck.
And I understand that's not your
intention. It's already permitted. It's
already been built. So there's nothing
the town can do about it. But it might
be good to, as we discussed, put some
kind of planting there. And then I don't
know if the town council can even do
this because it's already been permitted
and exists. But maybe there could be
something just spelled out that that is
definitely not a deck as the project is
approved and should never be used as a
deck. And I don't mean the walkway part.
I mean the part that they've said
shouldn't be used as a deck because no
one would want that looming over their
house. And I know it's not your
intention, but someday someone else
might own it. So, it'd be great if the
town council could uh somehow just call
that out so everybody's their concerns
are laid.
And those are all of my comments. Oh, um
I do like the overall project. I'm glad
actually that Ross gets another ADU. And
um yeah, that's it.
>> Um just just to kind of show you the
flat roof goes up to the property line.
>> So that's why it's very important. I I
agree. There should be something like
called out that like
>> Oh, planting to block it. Is that what
you mean?
>> Planting like next to the walkway like I
thought on the roof
>> like you know you could put like plant planters and get like you know
>> Okay. Like if the planter is two feet
tall, then you have like a four foot
plant and then someone who's six feet is
who's tall who's walking behind it
doesn't look into their yard and they
don't see the person walking on that
walkway for the very few times that
someone is walking there just no one
sees it.
>> Can can I just clarify that? Um, you
were talking about like in San Francisco
they call it like an AB005
where you fill something out that says
we will not build here or put a window
here or you were just talking about the
planters.
>> Sorry, I was talking about two separate
things. Yeah, exactly. One should be it
would be great if the town council could
figure something out or the town staff
where it was just very clear that that
was never going to be a deck.
>> It would be a condition of approval.
put in the conditions of
>> the second thing that would be great
that we talked about that's voluntary
because it's already approved was if you
just got some, you know, nice planters
and put a little hedge so when someone's
walking there's planting here and then
nobody looks out into their house as
they're using that walkway to access the
backyard.
>> Clear? Yep.
>> Thanks.
>> Okay, Joey, your turn. Okay. So, I'll
start just with the pure design uh
elements regarding the finishes and the
color. I feel like it's too big of a
building to be so white to I echo what
my colleague said here about the base to
really read as a base. I think it would
be more successful if it were darker.
Um, and to that end, it I think it would
also be more successful if it had more
texture than just being stucco. For
example, considering making using the
siding but running it vertically and
painting it a different color, having it
be darker than the main house. I think
the white the white white everywhere is
going to make that building just look
enormous up on the hill. So, I think
that would go a lot that would go quite
far to mitigating the perceived mass.
Um, I also think with a really white
building and black um window sashes,
it's so contrasting and you've got a lot
of windows there. If you might knock
down the contrast, I also think that the
roof material is a little too light. You
could go a shade darker because there's
a lot of roof. You actually see a lot of
roof. So those would be my suggestions
just from a purely color point of view
from finishes. I I don't have any
problem with the pool equipment where
it's showing specifically because it's
on Sir Francis Drake and the noise it's
already noisy and I think that's that's
a perfectly fine place for it. I would
pull the patio back and provide planting
screen, just more green, not have the
patio right up to the um to the uh to
the property line. I also agree with my
colleagues about
some sort of way to uh ensure that that
flat roof won't become a deck someday.
Some way to do it legally. And uh
what were the other issues we had
discussed? Um
I think that's it. That's really what I
felt the most. It was just too big and
too white because it's such a big
building.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Uh thank you everybody for your
time.
Now we will move on to the next item.
Um, Robera and Alex have some
information for us.
>> Um, so this is a continuation of the
discussion
to draft a pool and land landscape
feature exception. Um, the process would
basically have to be considered by the
council, but it would streamline pools
and landscape features that are at least
a 10-ft step back from the property
lines. Um, in our last meeting, there
was a question about
um, hillside lots and pools on hillside
lots. So,
what did we find, Alex? Based on what we
found, they weren't necessarily
pushing the pools closer to the um
>> property line but there were some
instances where
it was closer than 10 ft
>> like two, I think
>> there were two. So the option there
would be that this uh pool exception
process would not apply to hillside lots
and if they want a pool in the setback
it would be the same. They are asking
for a variance that would go before the
ADR and then the council. Um a lot of
the pools we're seeing though aren't
necessarily in hillside lots and that
this process would help them. Um, and so
the next step of the process is really
just kind of going through the draft and
if there's any questions or anything
that we're missing that we want to
capture to do that now before we send it
to the town attorney's office um for
their legal review.
>> I want to bring Mark up to speak because
the three of us were here last month and
made this comment about the hillside
lot. So the the question was
whether or not we're going to see we
wouldn't see pools on a hillside which
um might necessitate a large retaining
wall at the let's say the downward edge
of the pool and that would be we might
not we might want to see those in lie of
having them be administerially done
because that could get it could
exacerbate some conditions if it's
within 10 ft. of a property line. So
that was the discussion.
>> Doesn't that need to come in front of
the ADR if it has a big retaining wall?
Does the retaining wall necessitate a
variance or something else if it's
higher than six
>> anything over 48 in
>> Yeah. So that it was a discussion we
had. We weren't we didn't make a
recommendation. We just we just asked.
>> So I'm just just thinking out loud.
Let's say something is exactly 10 feet
from the property line and it's exactly
48 inches tall, the retaining wall,
>> and you're downhill from it because
that's
>> if you're above it, you don't care,
right?
>> So, I'm just trying to envision that.
So, 10 feet, you know, I'm here to that
wall
>> and then it's slightly above me. So,
maybe like where that picture frame is
and then on top of that there's a 4ft
retaining wall and then a pool. So
theoretically, it could almost be as
close to me as that uh
molding
>> and then they put a railing on top
>> and then a railing on top and there are
people standing there and they're 10 ft
from my fence. So yeah, I could see that
being an issue when it's 10 ft and it's
above you
>> and it's a slope.
So they're building
that 48 in allowed
>> Yeah.
>> by right retaining wall. Yeah, that that
makes sense. Try to envision that. It
seems like it could be looming.
>> Yeah, I think that this whole new
program we're
probably
shouldain.
>> Yeah, I'm okay with that exception as
far as because we don't see that many
coming for a hillside lot. So, that
means we won't be overwhelmed by every
pool in the setback. And then there's
one other potential issue that that just
made me think of. What if it's not a
hillside lot? What if it's just a
relatively normal lot, but it happens to
just slope down at the end?
>> Mhm.
>> And then you could have this exact same
situation
>> because it's a 10ft slope.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. So theoretically there could be
like a 1acre flat lot. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And then just right above my fence, it
slopes down 15 ft and build the pool at
the end and like then I've got that same
scenario even if it's not a hillside
lot.
>> So maybe
the the issue is it shouldn't apply if
there has to be a retaining wall built
on the downward slope.
Like then maybe it shouldn't be 10 feet.
So, even if it's not a hillside lot,
maybe it should just be on pools that
require
uh a retaining wall because they're
built on a slope. If they're within 10
ft of the property line, regardless of
if it's a hillside lot or not, maybe
that should not be allowed. I I I
remember so there was one more piece of
the conversation we did have is staff
has the ability to look at something
like this and say ah we're not
comfortable with it because we're
starting to see an unusual exception to
this 10-foot rule and you can say I'd
like that to go before the ADR. So we do
have a sort of the staff has an out if
you're starting to see something that
gamifies the system so much that it
creates a really bad scenario. I like
the idea of the hillside lot because
it's very succinct. It's very specific.
It can be very like it's those lots.
They don't qualify because when you
start to get into like, well, if they
got a little retaining wall, then it
starts to be a little mushy.
>> Or maybe and maybe even so the out that
they have,
>> which might be hard to do, but maybe
there's good wording for that. If they
have the out where something looks that
you could say
>> in cases
>> such as retaining walls you could even
call it out because otherwise at some
point someone say well everyone's
allowed 10 feet
>> so we should be allowed 10 feet because
our retaining wall is only 3 feet tall.
>> So like you might even use that as an
example
>> uh for ways to maybe not just approve it
by right. How do you guys think about
what is your opinion on this particular
issue?
>> So, I'm very supportive and I want this
to move forward. I am a little fearful
that
the two of us are going to get all the
complaints, right? like why did you guys
allow all these 10- foot away pools? And
no one we no one ever told us our
neighbor was going to build a pool 10
feet away from us and if it's elevated
or on a retaining wall and then maybe
there could be privacy issues then
they're like now they're they can look
over to our house that gives me a little
bit of pause. So I would want this to be
as I guess strict as possible. Maybe for
now it's really only for
in ground or pools that don't require a
retaining wall more than a certain
height.
>> I mean, I'm if if that works, Mark's
suggestion, I think I'm fine with that.
>> Something about the retaining wall
height. Um because if your neighbor's
lot is relatively flat, but happens to
slope down just above you, like that
unusual rare
>> Yeah. circumstance.
If the retaining wall was only a foot
high, well then it's basically flat for
the pool. But, you know, maybe you just
say any retaining wall uh over
>> 18 in 2T
>> over 18 in and then they can always come
in and get it approved and people can
always say, "Oh, look. Well, yeah, it
slopes down a little bit, but the
neighbors above it because there's a
creek or something like that. So, it
doesn't matter.
>> You can always
approve it,
>> but it's hard to deny it in the very
unlikely and unusual cases where it
would be looming over somebody's place.
>> I'm I'm good with that.
>> Okay.
>> What do you think, Joey?
>> So,
>> yeah, I I'm comfortable with the
retaining like if it requires a
retaining wall, then that triggers you
determining if it needs design review.
Is that what we're saying?
>> Any retaining wall? Yeah. Just
>> Yes. If it requires a retaining wall,
you need designer. You can
>> And then if we do that, we're not going
to say the hillside lot thing, right?
Sometimes the like the opposite of what
he's saying. You can have a hillside lot
and it's still totally flat on one side
like my yard.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Yeah. I think that that's I think that's
appropriate.
>> I think that would cover Yeah. It would
>> the you know concern of the unusual
circumstance. Yeah. Right. Can can we
talk about what we uh not that
>> um
we had a we had a set height for things
that could be within this 10 foot or or
within this special zone let's call it
right between a building setback
>> 20T to 10t
>> well it was 40t to 10 ft right to 10t so
in that zone we had said I think we had
said 36 in because we were thinking a
countertop right for like an outdoor
kitchen.
>> Yes. Um,
>> I thought we said higher, but
>> that's what I I I kind of want to know
what we did say. I was scrolling through
the draft and I can't remember.
>> I thought it was 48.
>> It might be. I don't know. Alex, can you
find that in here?
>> Oh, yeah. There it is.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> The following landscape features shall
not exceed a maximum height of 4 feet
measured from the finished grade. Go
down a little bit, Alex.
>> Okay.
>> And that's an outdoor kitchen, an
outdoor fireplace, and the built-in
seating. So if you have any of those
>> four feet instead of six feet.
>> Yes, I'll tell we'll tell him.
>> But there's that there was that other
piece that was
>> right. So they would drop
>> they would be from
>> but we're giving them a variance like
we're not approving it based on a future
code change. We're giving them a
variance based on the fact that that's
happening.
>> That is correct. But when we think about
that, so what Joey just said, this term
says finish grade.
>> So when they built a deck, finished
grade,
>> which one is the finished grade in that
scenario? Is it the patio or is it the
actual grade at 2 foot6 below that?
>> The patio.
>> So the patio, why isn't it the grade?
>> But that's perfect because that's
actually what we told him. We told him
that it had it could be six feet
including the two feet below the patio.
So, which meant 4T above the finished
grade. So, we actually did end up here,
which was correct. Do we like that? Do
we like No, I follow you. I think you're
correct. It's 2 foot six
>> because wherever the grade is like, you
know. So, so I'm on my deck.
>> It's a wall
>> 11 ft away from the property line and
I'm standing here. I'm 6 feet.
>> If I got something four feet tall,
>> it doesn't affect
like it doesn't matter. This is the
green. This is the patio. So, it's like
I'm standing I don't know what this is.
Okay.
>> And most of the retain
>> this one here.
>> I think it's the view from it's the
neighbor's view at now this thing is 10
ft from the from the fence. This is the
fence up from
allow that deck.
>> Well, it's not a deck though. I think
it's just like a
>> It's a It's a retaining wall.
>> We would have to allow that patio to be
built if it was four feet tall.
Actually,
this whole thing would not
>> come to us.
» That's right.
>> Is a retaining wall.
>> So, this wouldn't Oh, Joey, your mic.
>> Whole thing has gotten jacked up. Yeah,
>> they conveniently didn't give us a
section of the pool.
>> It it the whole thing has risen to the
level of the house.
>> Okay. Right.
>> And the whole
>> land sloped away. So with our new
>> regulations that we're speaking of, this
would not have qualified for the 10 foot
deal
>> because that what is
>> over 18 in. It's 32.
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. So,
uh,
>> the pool wouldn't have worked,
>> but the and neither would the
>> patio and none of it would have worked
>> in the new our new plan.
>> So, so let's just clarify that the
retaining wall for a pool is different
than a retaining wall for that patio
space where the barbecue in is, right?
>> It's still 10 ft from the setback line
and it's over 18 in. The retaining wall
is bigger than 18 in. So therefore they
wouldn't be allowed to have this deal.
>> Yeah. Because Steven was very uh clear
in his suggestion, which is a good one,
of limiting things to the 18 in
>> 18 in above
>> grade.
>> Great.
>> Yeah. Otherwise, the 10 foot thing
otherwise you're going back to 40 ft and
>> so they're 26. It should have been if it
was 18. We're okay with that. It would
have been fine at the barbecue area if
it was 18 in of a retaining wall and
then a 4ft barbecue.
>> Yes.
>> Exactly. because we're still saying
finish grade isn't isn't the ground,
it's the new patio.
» No, I think we're saying it's the two
different things here.
>> This is what I'm Yeah. So, let's
>> two different things. We're we're saying
this deal doesn't even pertain to
anybody that's got to build a retaining
wall bigger than 18 in.
So number one, this you don't get this
10 foot
>> okay
>> leniency if you must build a retaining
wall bigger than 18 in
>> and we just came up with the 18 inches
now we just said that okay sober
>> I think that was already part of it like
>> we had something above we did have
something in here above
>> already for decks and patios
>> right decks and patios okay
>> was it 18 in I think that's what
>> I I I
>> it's number two the pool decks pool
decks not exceeding 18 inches in height.
>> Patios, fireplace.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. So, we had that.
>> Okay. So, that makes So,
>> that's all good.
>> He got away with lots of stuff in some
ways, shape, or form because that should
the 2 foot six should be 18 in.
>> Mhm.
>> And the retaining wall at the pool
wouldn't be allowed unless we it came
here and we gave it a variance.
>> But it did come here and we were okay
with it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But you're right. that would
not be just allowed by right uh three
months from now if everything gets
approved.
>> Right. So council
>> to clarify Roberto we were saying that
no
retaining walls associated with pools
>> fall into this
>> but is there an 18 in
>> that's why I was wondering.
>> Yeah we just do the 18 in keep
>> okay keeping consistent.
>> So keeping the patios and pool retaining
at 18 in max.
>> Yeah.
>> Call it a day. Okay. Well, and and we
sort of have that with the pool decks
not exceeding 18 in.
>> Yeah.
Yeah.
>> And then you get 48, right? So that's
>> on top of the 18 or 48 from
>> I think you get it on top of finish
grade.
>> Yeah. Finish grade becomes the pool
deck.
>> What do you think of making that 36 from
finish grade if you have an 18 inch
jackup? Or you can have 48 if you need.
No. Because think about it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You then you're getting plus
48 is a lot.
>> Yeah. I'm okay with that.
>> Yeah. I think that actually is good.
>> You you get 48 either from finish grade
or you get 48US 18. Like you're saying
36 from finished grade. If it's so
you're saying 48 in from
>> grade is really
>> 36 inches from an 18inch raised patio or
>> which we don't have to qualify if we if
we qualify it as above finish grade
>> not
that's the definition of finished grade
here in our code. I don't know if it's
the new surface you've created or the I
always thought it was the the soil,
>> right? Can can it
>> unconstructed? Can it say over existing
grade?
>> Finish grade.
>> Okay, so grade. So this should be
>> 48 inches above grade.
>> Above grade is what you get. If you go
to a finished grade that's
>> 18 in
>> or less above grade, then you get a 30.
I mean, or should
>> I don't think you have to say the second
one at all.
>> You just have 48 inches from grade
>> and just to clarify so it's
>> easier for people to understand and you
don't get in these arguments in future
years. I I think it could be worded as
48 in above grade,
not finished grade to clarify that it's
grade not finished.
>> I think that's fine. Yeah. Because
otherwise people well they'll then be
having this argument and like well we
thought this and that way it's just very
clear.
>> I think that's clear.
>> Yeah.
>> So if you're building on grade you get
48 in. If you've raised it 18 in then
you get 36.
>> What if somebody else raised it and you
buy the house and move in then what is
existing grade?
>> You know what I mean?
>> Whatever the grade is at the end. It's I
wouldn't say it's it's not a to existing
grade. It's too grade
>> great.
>> So if they have they could burm it up.
I'm sure there's other tricks that
people will try to do.
>> I'm guessing.
>> But is that good? Do you have that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, great. And that's I think that's
easier then and we'll put less pressure
on you going forward which is what we
want to do also.
» Okay. And the trellis's comment I made
last week, did we incorporate that in
there? Can we get I want to make sure
that I
>> just wherever it's appropriate to use
trellis as an example of something that
can't go in this special zone.
>> Yeah, I don't think we have trellises as
part of landscape structures.
>> That needs to go through.
>> However you read it, if someone apply
like I want to build a 10-ft trellis in
this thing, you know, 10 foot away from
the sideyard setback. I want to make
sure that that's clear. You can't get
that in this special exception.
>> Well, I think the height does that
anyway.
Yeah, it was some of the language in the
document that made me think that troll's
fall as an exception. I just want to
make sure it was clear.
>> No, this is our definition for landscape
futures produc
» seats. Oh, I can zoom in
>> 100%.
>> So,
>> that's why I want to make sure it was I
think it was our I think it's the ex um
I wanted to see trelluses as an example
of landscape features
>> in this. So we have decks, patios,
fireplaces,
seat walls. I would love to see
trelluses.
>> Just add the word trellis.
>> Yeah.
>> Wait, but that's what's allowed.
>> That's this is what we consider
landscape.
>> Go ahead and do that.
>> No. No.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Um,
>> so if they're applying for that 10 foot
setback, then this is what they can
have.
>> As long as you've got that covered, that
one.
>> Yeah. then I'm fine.
>> Um, and then I know we have kind of gone
back and forth on the Oh, does it say it
there? Pool equipment on the pool
equipment thing. So, is the pool
equipment going to be allowed to this
new 10-ft setback?
>> Uh, we crossed it out.
>> I think not.
>> No. Okay,
>> we crossed
>> Okay, that's I I don't care either way.
I'm just trying to make sure I know in
my head what we're
>> And I think that's good because that's
noisy eight hours a day. It's not like
>> and there's already an exception.
>> There's already exception. Can you
remind us what that exception is?
>> Yeah, pull equipment exception. They can
put it in a setback is uh they have to
meet the noise requirements which is 55
dB. They have to get consent from the
adjacent neighbor.
>> Okay.
>> Zone, but they have to have those
>> and some other conditions. But those are
the main
>> the project that we just discussed the
pool equipment.
>> They don't need to do that because
>> they they can't because that's just for
sight and rear setbacks. exception is
just for not for front setbacks.
>> I see. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Mhm.
» So, they'll the pool equipment will show
up in this special zone as long as they
have it soundproofed and they get the
neighbor approval
>> for a minor exception. Yeah. They can
apply. But if it's in the side or rear,
if it's in the front, then
>> either they um place it not in the
setback or they're also going to have to
apply for a minor exception.
>> Okay.
>> To put it in the rear or side front is
always a variance.
>> And is the minor exception just what you
discussed is what they have to do. They
don't come here for that or
>> No, it's just we do notice it to the
adjacent neighbor.
>> Um but yeah, it doesn't really go just
goes to like whoever touches the
property. So maybe two neighbors, maybe
three. Just depends.
» Okay.
Anything else?
>> So are is the ADR ready to recommend
this to the council or um do you want to
see it again? What um is your
recommendation?
>> I would be ready.
>> I am ready. I'm ready. Yes.
>> So all four of us are ready to recommend
it to the council. Okay. With that one
change that
>> with the change discuss.
>> Yeah.
Great.
>> Great.
>> Thank you.
» Okay.
I suggest we adjourn the meeting.
[laughter]
>> Second.
>> Third. Ajourn.