 Thanks for your patience everybody. We're going to get underway in just a minute. We've had some Housekeeping stuff to take care of the question. I need to ask the city attorney and she's on her way and we are Welcoming a new member. I'll talk a little bit more about that, but we're going to get started here Real shortly and we have our quorum here. So we'll be able to hear the item Okay, thanks for your patience everybody I'd like to call to order a meeting of the city of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board and ask for roll call, please Let the record reflect that all board members are present except for board member McHugh And with that we move to Approval of our August 21st 2019 minutes Board members any comments or questions about those minutes? Okay, those will stand as printed Next we move to board business first I'll read the Statement of purpose for the board The cultural heritage board shall consider the following matters standards guidelines and criteria to the extent applicable in Determining whether to grant or deny a permit Whether the proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building Whether the proposed change is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures Whether the colors textures materials fenestration Decorative features and details proposed are consistent with the period and or are compatible with adjacent structures Whether the proposed change destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features There's standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings as well as such other matters Criteria and standards as may be adopted by resolution of the cultural heritage board and Today we are joined by a new cultural heritage board member Brian I Understand you've taken the oath already, so we don't have that on the agenda, but I wanted to welcome you to the CHB and thank you very much for agreeing to serve with us and Wanted to just give you the chance to introduce yourself if you felt like it and and share any Comments or feelings that you have? My name is Brian Muser. I live at 403 Brown Street I do live in the Burbank Gardens cultural district heritage district I Live prior to that and the Cherry Street Historic district were over a 20-year period my wife and I restored a 1894 Queen Anne Victorian home and We also have a home at 545 Humboldt Street a small bungalow that we restored there as well I love Santa Rosa. I love the historic buildings in Santa Rosa. I love the historic districts I did serve on the cultural heritage board in the 90s Looking forward to serving again. All right, great. Thank you, Brian Okay, next we will move to public comment this is a time for anybody who's here and Wishing to comment about a matter that's not otherwise on the agenda to have the opportunity to speak I Have a number of comment cards you don't need to have filled out a card to speak and every card that I have is under item 6.1 except for an unspecified card from Ms. Russell who's On Tupper Street, so perhaps is here for item 6.1 as well Anybody who's here wishing to comment on something other than item 6.1 Please feel free to approach the podiums and state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to speak Hello, my name is chair and I said I wanted to specifically welcome you to the board I'm really glad to hear that you are an owner of historic properties and That you care about these old homes I hope that you have had the opportunity to not have just been a board member, but to have also gone through the process yourself It can be grueling It can be very difficult. It can be emotionally fraught Specifically for people who are coming with their biggest asset that they've ever that they're ever gonna own and Sometimes in the past. It's been very difficult to get clear-cut guidelines and to Be treated with respect. I see that changing I'm glad to see that changing and I hope that you'll be a continuing part of that change. Thank you Thank you. If anybody else wishes to speak Please approach the podiums. I'm not seeing anybody. So I will conclude Item four public comment and we'll move to item five statements of abstention. We have One item tonight board members any abstentions from item 6.1 Okay All right with that we'll move to item 6.1 Which is a public hearing on the landmark alteration permit for the carpenter urban cottages This is an ex parte disclosure board members a few of any Information Outside of the record to disclose. Please do so board member debaucher. I Visited the site but not since the last meeting so Board member Fennel. I have visited the site that I have not been Specifically back to that site since the last meeting either and board member Muser Do you have any information from visiting the site or from speaking to anybody that's not in the public record that you Item 6.1, okay, and I also visited the site, but I have no information to disclose and With that we will hear the staff presentation by Ms. Tumant Thank You chair Edmondson members of the cultural heritage board The item 6.1 is carpenter urban cottages It's a landmark alteration permit at the addresses of 25 array and and 715 Tupper streets Before getting started this item was continued due to a noticing defect the notices were Reprinted and mailed to all occupants and absentee owners within 600 feet of the project site The specific defect was both addresses weren't listed on the notice the revised notice includes those both Both of those addresses however after looking at the tonight's or this afternoon's agenda It appears only one address is on the agenda however all of the paper notices and the notices to the press Democrat and The post and notice in the bulletin board all feature both addresses So I just wanted to disclose that before I get started So this is a major landmark alteration permit to demolish a detached 325 square foot rear accessory structure and constructs two pairs of duplexes which in our code we Call multi-family units anytime. They're connected and they will be connected by covered car Carports and they will be behind the existing 821 square foot dwelling That's on Tupper Street So here's a general aerial aerial of the project site. It's dashed in the blue line and there's a yellow star there So it's a fairly long piece of property that fronts on both ray and Tupper. It's a through lot and the existing Single-family dwelling fronts onto Tupper Street and you can kind of see the accessory structure just behind it Here's a close-up Flyover view of the subject property You can see that It's fair. It's adjacent to a parking lot that serves the senior housing tower across the street but otherwise there's a park to the north and Single-family dwellings around it Here's the zoning and general plan. I'm sorry the zoning and general plan designation for the property. It's medium residential And the zoning is plan development Here's a close-up view of where the plan development boundaries are You can see that the subject property is just on the edge of one of the borders and this specific plan development calls for R3 PD which would be a multi-family type of project or density The property is also in the Burbank Gardens Preservation District. You can see it's at the The top right where the star is kind of on the the edge And here is our contributor map you can see that the front portion So the the property itself is cut into two lots the property that fronts Tupper Street is a contributor the single-family dwelling is listed as a contributor the rear portion which Historically has served as a garden is not a contributor Here's the existing site plan showing the 821 square foot single-family dwelling and the detached structure With our research and the applicants research we were not able to find any permits specifically identifying that detached accessory structure and it wasn't present on any Sandbar maps that we could locate On it is shown on the aerial, but it's it's unclear whether it was a permitted structure to begin with Here's the proposed site plan so you can see the single-family residents will remain Intact they aren't they are not planning any changes to the existing dwelling, but there will be two sets of duplexes Situated behind the single-family dwelling so two will will front onto Ray Street and two will front onto Tupper. They're connected with a carport. These are One bedroom apartments and they would they're required to provide one covered space and Half of a guest parking space so They have the carports that provide the covered parking and also connects the two units Because the R3 zoning requires attached dwelling units rather than detached Here's the proposed landscape plan the type of fencing that the applicant is proposing I'll let the applicant get into more details on what their plans are But it looks like the privacy fence would secure the private rear yards of the units Here are the elevations of the proposed buildings The total height is 25 feet the max height in the and the zoning district is 35 35 feet and This proposal is at 25 feet, and I just wanted to go over a little bit of history this project has Has been in the development stages for almost four years and and There were various iterations of what the project would would be From the last concept meeting with the Cultural Heritage Board the Request was to make the structures a little bit more cottage light and make the windows more symmetrical and to bring the overall height and massing down and I believe The height of those structures were brought down considerably from the last time it was brought before the cultural heritage board at concept with that the applicant is here to Make a presentation or answer any questions and staff is also here to answer any questions you might have Chair if I might interrupt quickly Jessica Jones We're hoping to request a quick recess The city attorney's office wanted to confer with one of our board members about this item Okay, we will recess right now and return shortly The Bourbon Gardens neighborhood association for support a few years ago I was not present at that meeting and the first time that I became aware of this project was as a board member of this committee sitting on this On this dais and so that It's been brought up that perhaps I would have a Problem being able to fairly judge this project as a result of being on the cultural Being on the neighborhood association And I have assured city staff that that is not the case having not been present when it was presented Previously and having seen the plans only as a board member of this committee. I feel More than fair in being able to judge it on its merits So that's it all I have to say at this point Okay staff anything else at this time, okay? All right Board members any initial questions for staff before we hear from the applicant or would everybody be Satisfied hearing from the applicant before asking any staff or applicant questions Okay, I understand you have a presentation Thank you Is this on now? Okay We get reminded to get closer to the mics from time to time as well. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Welcome Brian to the committee. This is a little bit of a complicated project to here at your first meeting, but I'm sure you have an open mind. So and you live in the neighborhood so The we put up on the two easels here and unfortunately the only one that the people in the audience can see is the current version but on your Left, I believe is the Is the version that we brought to the To the board back in 2017 I believe to a concept review meeting and then there were changes made Let me back up a minute and introduce myself. I'm a Lima silverman I'm an architect here in Santa Rosa and I'm working With mr. Carpenter on this project So between the concept meeting and what we're showing you tonight, which is up on the board there on the screen We made some changes based on the comments that were made and I just want to go through those quickly One comment that was made back in 2017 had to do with historical research at the Northwest Information Center Both myself and mr. Carpenter did go to the Information Center and researched this property They had nothing on it not even one little piece of paper so But that's included in the historical report that you've all seen Now back to the two drawings there was comments made about the rhythm of the window placement and The placement was revised from the previous version To the for the windows to be more symmetrical and for there to be symmetry between the lower and upper windows Double windows were added on the upper gable ends and window panel details were revised to show Pain divisions only on the upper pains I think that the reason for that was more in line with what's done in the neighborhood Base and cap details were added to the entry porch columns At the request of the city the units have been attached They were not attached at that last presentation But it's required because of the zoning in that neighborhood And they were provided with it they had to be covered parking so they were provided with carports that connect the units The upper roof eve on the north elevation is continuous And the dormers are wider The door at the porch has been moved from the center off to the side to allow room for sitting on the porch and There are shingles above the porch entry that is reflected a reflection on the upper gable ends now before these two versions that you see here on the easels There were a couple of previous versions initially The developer wanted to provide garages for houses even though it's not typical in the Burbank Gardens neighborhood But for because of the parking issues in the neighborhood The developer wanted to provide Garages so the first version showed garages with two stories above it and the comment was oh no too massive too much so The second version came and there was development on a second floor the first floor was still garages So the third version or one of the versions that you see on the left there at the easel the garages were done away with and Parking was just on ground level They have become covered now, but the garages had to go away So I'm just saying this so that you know over time that the developer has been responsive to both neighborhood comments and comments from the board and from staff as we've gone through with different submittals You also received in addition to some of the some letters from the neighborhood you received a Letter from Judy Kennedy who's a resident in the neighborhood and she did some extensive research That talks specifically about Tupper Street that although most of the houses in the Burbank Gardens historic district are small bungalows that Tupper Street has a different housing stock all together and on page four of those five pages that were sent to you there are 14 two-story houses on Tupper Street itself just the Three blocks of Tupper Street and an additional seven on the side streets Brown Henley That are two-story And then in addition to that there are the One and a half stories that have a number of steps that go up to a raised floor So just so you know that this two-story look is not unusual at all for the neighborhood It's lower than the house The 25 feet is lower than the house next door to the west and lower than the house across the street Which is Three stories with an attic with an attic. Yeah, the attic isn't as big as this attic, but attic nevertheless So I just wanted to draw your attention to that report because there was a lot of research done on that that goes back to Some of the historical reports done Tupper is different than the other Many of the other blocks in the Burbank Gardens neighborhood Miss Kennedy did Say in her at the end of her report. She had one request She asked that mr. Carpenter supply a bike rack in each carport and two bikes near the visitor parking spaces And so the comment on that is that there are bike racks provided in each of the units So there are four bike racks right now that exist within the units and There can be ones provided by the visitor parking because we know with this being a downtown project That people will be coming and visiting on their bikes And we encourage that so We will add some bike racks to the visitor parking areas Do you have other mr. Carpenter? Do you have other comments you'd like to make? One more there you go. No, that's no one more No No, that's where you were one more Yeah, right there If you notice the lots out the Tupper Street are only 40-foot wide North of Tupper Street, they're developed 50-foot wide they came at different mapping in the hit early history of Santa Rosa This was actually notice in the Peterson report when the first came out Which was one of the first historic researches Santa Rosa did on their properties so the other thing is the zoning on On Tupper and down Henley in East Street is multifamily residential So all the single-family houses that exist there are legal non-conforming any new development would have to be with multifamily This property is actually on vacant land You know land that could not be registered historically No great battles were fought here No significant events So historically I Think what I've gotten from this committee. This is like the fifth committee that I've come before Is that really what you're trying to protect is the historic resources including the district's neighborhood street view So A lot of the development that has occurred in this neighborhood Behind the street view front of the house is larger And you can see that just walking around the neighborhood One time the committee had a standard of 35 feet back from the front is As far as that they considered street view So that's kind of I Think that these well, I've attempted to do with this project It's dependent to the neighborhood Into the type of housing that's available there got smaller and smaller as comments came in from the neighbors and a lot of what you see Is a response to the changes in building codes and what's required nowadays? You know as far as being net-zero accessible and That of course necessitates it being different than replicating a historic house next door. Okay If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them Okay, thank you board members any questions for mr. Carpenter or His architect or for staff before we hear from the public member debacle Chair Edmondson Apologize for the interruption Would it be possible for it for staff to move the exhibits that were brought in by the applicant? So the audience would be able to view that's a great idea, of course Yes for people in the audience the previous version is on the right and The current version is on the left Great. Thanks board member debacle. Thank you I Really have one question primarily on the project. I like it quite a lot generally Question is the HSR the historic structures report Did any of the participants in that or the author? Have their certification from the state of California? For full access to the California historical resources information system that requires a vetting and a review and approval process well You're asking if either of the two people who did the research were Certified by the state of California, right? No No, but I did look at the application. I'm qualified as a stark researcher I just haven't added that to my list of certifications, but I couldn't do that Okay, you don't have your Chris certification though for full access to the No, it wasn't necessary to do this That was really my question. The person that we spoke with when we got there Was someone who could go and look at all the records We didn't personally go in and look at the records There was someone we were assigned when we got there who went in and I assume was Qualified to look at all the records yes There are issues of disclosure to the general public or even property owners on certain aspects Okay, those records, okay. I just wanted to find out if In the development of that report that had had a qualified individual to do that. That's my question. Thank you Okay Board members Any other questions at this time before we ask for the public comment? Okay This is a public hearing. I have a number of cards on this item. You don't need to have filled out a card to speak I Am going to call Two names at a time if the first person would approach the podium state their name for the record They'll have three minutes to speak and then when that person concludes the next person can Start speaking and so on so with that I will Open the public hearing and my first card is Marlene Russell followed by Steve Storrell First I'd like to ask a question again because I wasn't quite clear and I don't have the paperwork What how many cars are you allotting for each? House for parking So I'll make a note of any questions and we'll make sure those get answered. Okay Because That's really my concern. I know the city of Santa Rosa is encouraging a density of housing within a certain radius of the transit mall But I really think before we add more cars to the neighborhood We need to study the situation because there's about an average of three cars per household an average I mean, I've lived in in the last in the 600 block of Tupper Street since 1991 we're house owners homeowners and It's incredible the parking The traffic flow and if you have it, I don't know if the Ray Street you're gonna be able to access this new House from either Henley or Brown But I think it's it's gonna be really dangerous and and adding Bicycles that you can ride through there is I you know I traveled on a bicycle for over a year of my life and I would not want to ride my bike around this neighborhood It's dangerous. It's dangerous for children playing. So that's my concern Is the traffic flow you guys are you know, I think you this is part of the quality of living It's not part of the culture heritage board situation But I think you really this needs to be addressed So that's you know, I have a very different perspective than some of the other people in the audience But I think it's an important one. That's it Thank you very much Ms. Russell next is Mr. Storrell followed by Catherine Storrell Steve Storrell Just for the record. We didn't get notified at 713 tougher misstep and notification My primary concern for this project is the height of the proposed structures, which at 25 feet will be considerably taller and Inconsistent with the basic visual and historic characteristics contributed by the existing bungalow on 715 Tupper The height of the proposed structures will also block the morning sun and shadow or adjoining property Contrary to the report that in these plans the heights have been lowered considerably I have the 2015 plans, which are 25 feet. So that has not been addressed Single-story units with a height equal to or less than the existing historic structure would be more fitting for our historic neighborhood I'm also concerned about parking the project proposal for parking is an adequate at 1.5 spaces per unit 700 block of Tupper is already Extremely impacted by lack of in parking Adding four additional two-story units will only make parking issues worse as there will certainly be overflow that cannot be mitigated The orientation of the Ray Street unit does not face Ray Park This is inconsistent with the orientation of an existing house at 710 Ray Street Which faces Ray Park and helps make Ray Park a defensible space I'm also concerned by the lack of Transparency and honesty by the owner of this project these structures are not single-story as portrayed They are two-story with plans for two additional Bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor Parking requirements in permit fees are being assessed for a single-story unit. Therefore these structures should be single-story In regards to Judy Kennedy's report First page 649 Tupper and 722 Tuppers which exemplify two-story units. These are both raised in the 1980s Foundations were replaced and the second story was put on. These are not historically this height 710 Tupper You know these houses this was a flood plain The creek flooded which made the soil for Burbank rich These houses had crawl spaces of six feet or lower Hence the 710 Tupper Street, which is being called one and a half stories is not it's a two-foot crawl space That's a false dormer up above. There's nothing one and a half stories about it Primarily the houses on Tupper Street 646 for example, that's a tutor the attic has been Has been converted, but that is the height of the original structure So this report from Judy Kennedy. She's just a person She's she's interested in historic properties, but she's not an expert. So I think there's some holes in her report here Ultimately, that's what I have Okay, thank you very much Ms. Storrell followed by I have two names on the next card Hugo Cruz and Lucas Gilbert and Mr.. Wonderful hello members of the board and city liaisons. My name's Catherine Storrell I live at 713 Tupper Street. It's the property immediately to the west side of this project I'd like to start by saying I did not receive a notification through the mail regarding the second meeting Nor did many of my neighbors on Tupper four of whom were here today It indicated they did not receive a mailing also the agenda does not list 715 Tupper Street under item 6.1 or any other item Regarding the project itself first these single-story studio units with finished attics have the look and feel of two-story structures They are 25 feet tall. They were previously proposed at 25 feet in 2015 at 22 feet in 2013 so these have in fact gotten taller over time in my opinion It's far too tall for a single-story unit that is behind a historically contributing structure in an historic district and I feel and I spoke it at the last meeting that an appropriate protection from the CHB Should be that all new construction behind historic contributors be subordinate in scale to The original structure this original structure being 15 to 16 feet tall It is also historically contributing home that is on the property This would be not to overwhelm the contributing structure and to minimize the visual impact of new construction in his in an historic district The roof line should also be brought down to be equivalent in height or Pardon me. I'm speaking that twice or inferior to the height of the original main property The orientation of The structures on the lot in relation to the massing of the roofs Most of the homes on Tupper have considerable peaks that are facing the front of the property With the majority of the roof visible from the side of the property the proposed structures have that Minimal entry with a bulk of the roof facing the street. I'd like to see dormers removed as these are not Necessarily true second stories. He's calling them attic space. So in this case, it's not necessarily a functional element I understand there are a few dormers in the neighborhood. They were typically reserved reserved for primary structures On lots and are not seen on secondary structures I Have a second concern, which is the five-foot setback Current code calls for a five-foot setback for a single story and a ten-foot setback for a two-story structure Because the applicant is calling these single stories at 25 feet tall. He is proposing a five-foot setback a Ten-foot setback in my opinion would be more appropriate based on the overall height of these structures Third two of the proposed units will be easily visible from the left and right sides of the applicant's property While viewed along Tupper Street, the visibility is going to bring me to another concern Which is that one of our character defining elements in bourbon gardens is that front doors of homes face streets The unit proposed on Ray Street does not in fact have a front door that is facing the street fourth proposed parking it's deficient in the sense that The main home that has two bedrooms should in fact have one covered and one and a half visitor parking And that is not accounted for in the plans should I stop If you could just take a couple quick seconds, okay, please. Thank you So let's see One allotted visitor space There is no street parking immediately in front of this house as this is a single side of street parking only So again the orientation of the parking is an issue and I brought that up at our last meeting. So these Tenants would drive into the property and then pull in toward neighbors fences I believe there are only two other properties in the neighborhood that that is the way parking is I Do want to comment on Judy Kennedy's written comments the proposed structures in This project are neither small bungalows nor are they stately historic homes and at least five of the two-story Structures that are shown in this mailing from Judy Kennedy are not actually contributors to the historic district Thank you for your time. I hope that we can influence the project to be more appropriate to our historic neighborhood Thank you. Mr. Cruz and I see Hugo Cruz and Lucas Gilbert is the card Hello, everyone. My name is Lucas Gilbert. This is my roommate Hugo Cruz First thing we want to mention is we completely understand trying to get the most out of your property however We had just signed a year lease on this on August 15th with a vague idea of There him possibly wanting to add a couple of tiny houses to the back nothing like this That I had had no idea anything like this would he would have had he would have had it in mind We were really sold on the space of our backyard, which is why we were so easily to pull the trigger on the year lease and we basically Yeah, we had no idea that this was going to be this soon of a project or this proposed to be this soon of a project and Yeah, we really were really sold on we were really sold on the space that was kind of advertised to us in the first place and Had kind of like I said, we had a vague idea that this any of this was really going to be going down So we're actually new to the neighborhood Hello, everyone, and my name is Lucas Gilbert again. It just in case I haven't met anyone and Do you have anything That's really all I have to say like I said firstly, I completely understand trying to get the most out of your property just a little out of the loop on what what was actually being proposed here and This sign just recently popped up on our lawn about a week ago, I want to say After we had moved in so this is kind of a surprise for us Can I ask you to just share your address for us, please 715 Tupper Street? Great. Thanks, and Each of you could speak. Okay, great My name is Lucas. They won or when we met him For the like he showed us the house when we met Mr. Carpenter He did tell us like hey, I do want to work on this he mentioned it I just also was not aware of how big it was like I was like oh you want to build some small homes back here And so that's what I thought was like some small stuff But just like looking at the plan there and seeing how much like backyard space we won't have anymore That's kind of sad for me because I really like having a big backyard That's the reason we saw we were so ready to pull the trigger and pay as much money as we're paying for that house That's all I wanted to say Okay, thank you very much Next card I have is John Sabatino followed by Ann Carrow Hello The presentation talked about the house across the street being Three stories with an attic the house across the street is about 12 feet high. It's my house One next to me is two stories with an attic Again the presentation this Judy Kennedy's work is is misleading to say the least I Think once upon a time in this neighborhood they really didn't give a shit and let people build Just because they did make those mistakes Doesn't mean you guys have to continue to have three little kids. I live directly across the street from this I feel this is gonna open up an element from Ray Park that I don't want at all It's gonna be a direct thoroughfare to the shitty market And it's a nice right angle Right to the market for the booze back to Ray Park and It's a good architect good guy. He's not a property manager. He's not gonna be able to handle this It barely handle fitting the one place Revolving door. We had raids already with the one guy with the butane hash you know You're gonna take on a project like this you need management. There's a lot going on Personally, I think the offset front doors it maybe there'll be another door For the upstairs apartment that will come after the building inspector leaves I think that's why that door might be offset not for sitting Let me see oh parking come on Tupper Street and parking. It's ridiculous. I gotta buy a permit to park in front of the house. I pay taxes for Four But there's nowhere to park Now where this is gonna be three cars four cars per unit plus the one in the front Which is only one car now, but who knows how long these guys are gonna stick around they kind of got bamboozled So I mean parking come on one and a half That's not gonna fly The height never came down in those two drawings. It's still 25 It's 25 because it's gonna be two units. It's gonna be two units Yeah, second floor is gonna be another apartment. I don't know it's tack on a staircase boom This is a cram and pack money grab Maybe I can get Low-income housing Collect federal checks, you know, it's this is about making money. This is not about preserving this neighborhood I think that's all I got Sorry if I'm a little bit emotional about it. It's just I have an interest. I like this neighborhood I'm raising a family right across the street from this and I don't think you can handle it Thank you Thank You mr. Sabatino next we have and Kara Hi, my name is and Carol and I live across the street at 7 10 Tupper I've lived in the neighborhood since 1977 I've been in four different houses, but I've been in the house Across the street now since 1980 we bought it in 82 so My biggest complaint with this whole thing is I don't I think I know why the roofs are tall and I'm with John on saying I have a good suspicion that those are gonna be two-story units And he's trying to pull the wool, you know my feeling because like those two tenants that moved In not knowing that how big of a project this was there's a lot of Wool being pulled over people's eyes. I think on this thing But my biggest problem is the parking I paid $20 a year to park my car in front of the house that I own To the city and a lot of times I cannot even park in the block that I'm required to park in on my parking permit I have to park in another block the 600 block who has major problems with parking Or I guess I could park over here on Sonoma Avenue and walk three blocks to my house, but that's kind of an inconvenience And the weekends are not covered with the parking permit So on a weekend you can pretty much guarantee if you take your car out You're not gonna be able to find a place when you get back. I have no driveway, so I have to park in front of my house So that's my biggest complaint is where the heck are these people gonna park and you know darn well They're gonna have more than one and a half cars I Think the roofs need to come down make them more like cottages little One-floor cottages my house is listed in this flyer as a two-story my house was built in 1906 It looks like a one and a half story. She says it's a one and a half It is eight hundred and ninety or nine hundred and eighty three square feet is one floor and One floor of living and an attic and our dorm and I'm between two houses that the One is a duplex where it goes a full length of our backyard The other one is the church that's been converted into a living place So I'm used to properties being on both sides of us all the way down our whole backyard But I'm I'm relieved to know that my fence is taller than most of their windows So I'm not worried about people looking in my backyard at all times I think if if a house went next door to me The all the windows looked in my backyard. I'd be furious because I think you've got it Have be respectful of the people that have spent their life savings and bought our homes here and Who have lived here? I've never left this neighborhood because I like it so much so That's all I got to say Thank you Thank you. Those are all the cards I have but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak and if You'll just state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes, please my name is Cher and as I live in the West End Historic District and My concern with this project has to do in large part with the zoning issue and the height of the building I understand you can go to 35 feet But this is very cool. These are clearly not one-story buildings these are Very clearly going to be cobbled in at some point with living in the second story So you would end up with a situation Where the minimum 10-foot setback requirement cannot be met because the building is already there so my question really to the board and I don't know if you're the right body for this question is What are the consequences down the road when these buildings do get cobbled in? And they are now either two separate units each or two additional bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs What is the city's ability to do anything about that? Well, will the owner be required to rip all of that out? Just I think the owner should understand the consequences the long-term consequences of his actions Thank you And if anybody else is wishing to give comments Don't see that anybody is so I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back for some follow-up questions based on what we've heard from the public for the applicant and for staff as the case may be just going to Try to go through some of these subjects that I know were brought up and then ask my fellow board members to join in to join in If Member of the public has a comment about this I would ask not to just break in with it If there's any significant Information that we feel is is incorrect or needs supplementation then If you just raise your hands when you hear information like that I'll try to come up with a way to deal with it in an orderly way instead of just have people chime in So let's start with the issue that was identified there by Ms. Ennis and by other members of the public regarding the setbacks and First of all a question that I'm going to ask a few times is you know Whether a certain problem or subject is within the scope of what the cultural heritage board is allowed to look at We are here to review a landmark alter a major landmark alteration permit and look at any evidence or Facts or consequences that have to do with the findings that we have to make or fail to make for a Major landmark alteration permit. So I want to make sure that we're only looking at what we're allowed to look at and then also any information to inform the public About the effects of the project and what can and can't happen based on the staff's knowledge of The zoning code that obviously is always appreciated So we have concerns that a five-foot setback is going to be insufficient based on future use of the premises Could I maybe just have a comment about What the uses of the premises are going to be limited to and what The property owner would be unable to do and then what the public would be allowed to do in response to a Use that goes beyond the scope of the permit or that brings a property out of compliance Yeah, the project as proposed is For a single bedroom single bedroom units at 576 square feet There is no stairwell access to the attic space The applicant has indicated that the attic would be used for storage only the only way to access the attic would be with a ladder the parking Requirements are based on a one bedroom unit which requires one and a half parking spaces per unit and the applicant has met those parking requirements As far as setback to the second floor it would be it would depend on a number of things so Ordinarily a one-story structure is required to have a five-foot side setback The second floor portion has to provide a ten-foot setback. There are cases in historic districts the cultural heritage board has the ability to Change those setbacks in response to compatibility issues because as you know in historic districts setbacks are very wildly depending on When those neighborhoods were built so in some cases they're closer to the street. They have a shorter front setback They might have a closer side setback. So the cultural heritage board has given a lot of leeway as far as approving Alternative setbacks so long as building code requirements and safety requirements are met As far as this project, we are not considering the attic space a second story So we are considering this project a single story proposal at five hundred seventy-six square feet Could you tell me a little bit about the what goes into a determination about stories and you know Whether there's a code section that has a definition of story. I just want to know You know what the staff flexibility is on that So I did confer so our zoning code Deferrs to the California building code as far as definitions regarding attic and story and The definition of story is very broad but the key definition of Mr. Rose is pointing me to the definition definition of story It says for the purposes of this code the definition for story shall be identical to that contained within the most current California building code and The California building code has a very broad definition of what a story is however an attic would be an unhabitable Area between the roof rafters and the ceiling choice below so Given that Given that the fact that The attic space is not accessible Through a normal stairway What would be required to be accessed with a ladder? staff believes that the Attic space is a true attic in this situation Okay, and so to market that attic for instance as a separate unit or or something of a like Would be contrary to the city code Yes, and then any efforts to convert the attic space to living space would require a building permit And planning would review any changes during the building permit process and should catch Deficiencies as far as parking for instance Of course if an applicant or a property owner chooses to convert things illegally Then we rely on code enforcement and complaints to code enforcement in order for the city to act and take action Okay I Wish for a board member debacle a question, please Okay, great. I didn't notice your hand. Thank you. I'm if you don't mind I'm gonna run through a couple other issues here while we have the staff and then I'll ask for You know, maybe 30 seconds for additional comments based on what we hear. Thank you. I appreciate it concern about just privacy and The effects of the you know, it's just related to the setback. Obviously. That's a major reason why setback requirements exist in the first place This project is going to meet We've discussed the definition of a story and then it's still going to be subject to the ordinary rules of course with regard to the The manner in which the windows and the the building are supposed to be laid out That's just a it's more of a statement, but it's wanted to make clear that That we don't really have the the purview in the context of this permit necessarily to look into issues of privacy and that we Understand that those considerations are handled based on the application of code requirements I believe window placement is also discussed in the city's design guidelines I just don't have them in front of me, but it it does Suggest that window placement Be sensitive to views and to neighboring properties Okay Quite a bit of discussion about the height of the structures There was there were a handful of comments about the height of the proposed projects over the years and Dispute about the idea that the height had been reduced. I think that couple of the comments were that the height In 2015 was was proposed to be 25 feet as well that the height in 2013 was proposed to be 22 feet if if we could just maybe have a comment from the applicant or from staff about the Maximum height of different proposals over the years and whether those comments are accurate I Haven't worked on this project from the very beginning so I can only refer back to When it was 30 feet high I remember when it was 30 feet and then it was reduced to 25 So those are the only two numbers that I remember, but I'll let mr. Carpenter Address that when I purchased this property in 2006 it had a height limit of 45 feet in the set back of zero For sides and rear now if it's 35 feet something's changed along the way without a proper public hearing Or if it's five foot and ten foot setbacks Something has changed Because it's always been our 318 Zero side setbacks zero rear setback and 45 foot height limit Things do change over the years. So it's very possible that they did change. I'm not sure about that I would have to research it before I could give you an accurate answer I might not have been specific enough I'm not speaking so much about the code what it would allow and whether it's changed. It's more about the project proposals And whether the height has been reduced you said you've I do remember that it was 30 feet and then it was reduced to 25 Yeah, originally it was a full three stories Then it was a full two stories and that's a single story with an attic Okay Related to height we had some concerns expressed about Sun and shadowing effects and I know that some of the findings that we make or fail to make in this context have to do with compatibility with adjacent historic structures When we talk about compatibility our concerns that might be concerns having to do with sunlight and shadowing Is it staff's opinion that that falls within the scope of compatibility or Discompatibility relate mainly to architectural features massing height as an aesthetic matter I know that Sun and shadow it's a it's a topic that is very highly Complex in California land use so I just would like a little bit of Sunlight shown on what we can and can't consider Yeah, the code doesn't specifically call out Sunlight and shadows. However, there is a finding that the board would have to make in the resolution Finding a finding letter D Which states granting the landmark alteration permit for the carpenter urban cottages would not constitute a nuisance Or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest health safety convenience or welfare or Materially injurious to persons property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located So it's sort of a catch-all as far as How the property fits in with the neighborhood okay We had a couple of statements about some Noticing issues perhaps and mail mail notices not going to all of the commenters here Could you just discuss what procedures the city went through to to give notice about this continuation? Yes, so the item was Renoticed meaning a new notice was prepared Correcting the the error that was in the previous notice and labels or a spreadsheet was created for all occupants and all absentee property owners within 600 feet radius of this property and Those were sent to a Third-party print shop where the postcards were created. They were delivered to the city and the city mailed them with with the appropriate postage I was alerted yesterday that at least three people stated they didn't receive a notice However, I Believe that our noticing was accurate to the best of the city's ability and it's unclear How they did not receive a notice Based on the city's efforts in addition, I did receive a returned notice showing that notices did go out for the occupant at 2312 4th Street, so It's unclear how they did not receive the notice, but the city did we did our best effort to send out a notice Okay we had Gentlemen here who are residing in the contributor if it's if I'm getting that correctly at 715 is that correct and they are critical of What they describe as not being given enough information about this project and the timeline or the scale of it Is that within our ability to do anything about In the context of a review of a landmark alteration permit if people have Dispute like that or a problem Might be that their remedy would be a private remedy With their landlord as a civil matter and not appropriate to address in this context We have to look at the adequacy of the description of the project the noticing of the project for city code purposes But it's my understanding that something like that is outside the scope of what we Have any say in Staff agrees with that statement. Okay Some comments again about the orientation of the door and Ray Street if I could just get another description about what the Path of travel on Ray Street what a person or a car traveling along Ray Street is going to see in terms of a door and that frontage Some some belief that there won't be traditional Door fronting there that it might out be out of character. So any description that you could give would be great So Ray Street would continue from Henry the Brown as part of this project. It would be a through street basically just one lane though The trash pickup would be along Ray Street on the Brown area the landscape area and Then the Unit that's nearest to Ray in order for it to have a private rear yard. It would have to take that half of the property To the property line so it would be a six-foot privacy fence on that green area On the left hand unit So coming down Ray Street, you would still see the across the parking lot. You'd still see the front front door the front roof over the door the landing and You'd have the Dormers looking over Ray Park When I first started this project Actually more than ten years ago. I was really Interested in combining it with Ray Park, but through the years Ray Park is really degraded to be a Almost a homeless encampment So while it's good to have the dormers looking over and the traffic coming back and forth It really does the property does need to be separated from Ray Park and that through street that one of my names talking about is important so between the Ray parcel and the Tupper parcel there is a Six-foot fence so there's no going from Tupper to Ray Street pedestrian or bicycle or car You know the two separate parcels with two separate accesses Yeah, I wish Ray Park is better than it is Okay Board members any other questions here and then I'm gonna ask members of the public to very briefly comment on anything that they feel was inaccurate or that they want to add not as part of the public hearing but I just want to indulge anybody for To give us more information if they feel like it But before that board members any questions for staff or the applicant or member debacle this this is for staff or the applicant One of the points raised today was was pretty good point that hasn't really been addressed to us before Could we get the contributor non-contributor map back up on on the screen? Okay I'm looking at Ray Street Are there we don't have any information about any homes? I'm sorry. Thank you. We don't have any information about any homes or structures on Ray Are there any buildings there that face Ray Street? Yes, there is I Don't know what what number it is it's Two lots down from this lot. We're looking at There's a duplex with garages and I believe to that well They're two story units They have garages that face the alley and they're not historic. I don't believe that Ray Street is Part of the historic district actually Anyway, this duplex never what it's a modern-looking duplex It was never the project was never brought to the cultural heritage board I'm going to finish up with this line of questioning and then I'll ask for any comments if you don't mind. Thank you I'm looking I'm looking at the Burbank Gardens preservation district figure 2.7 in the 20-28-040 Historic age combining district documents on Burbank Gardens and Ray Street is in fact part of the district Okay But it doesn't show the contributors or the non-contributors. Yeah, the same map there. Thank you What my concern is if there are existing nearby Houses that the setback and orientation respect those additional Structures along that street and we don't have any information about that here today Well, there is the one it's a duplex that faces Ray Park Again, I don't have the exact number of that unit The address appears to be 712 and 710 yes, yes, Ray Street. It's also important to note that That portion of Ray Street that fronts the subject property is is not fully developed and Should this project get approved and move move forward they would be required to improve Ray Street So with sidewalks and curve and everything certainly thank you I just was concerned about not having information about the other structures along that street that may have setbacks and Architecture that we may need to relate to even if they're non contributors. Thank you Board members anything right now Board member fettle. I guess the question that I have for the for the city is How are we allowing the applicant how is it not a conflict for the applicant to fill out his own historic? Assessment, you know and not being sequa Registered and then how I mean it would be like me saying my house is not historic because The previous owner put t111 on it. It's still historic. It's still listed as a historic home in the Burbank Gardens district But that would be like I can't say well we put vinyl windows up and I can't find anybody that that lived in there That was of consequence It's not I'm not going to look too hard to find anybody of consequence and it's Because it's to my benefit to get what I want done to do my own work And although he's an architect. He's when he's not we don't have the qualifications and with the registration or the third party that's necessary and this was brought up prior to the last meeting as A possible problem and it doesn't look like it was addressed at all thank you if you look at this staff report it talks about the processing review procedures for owners of historic properties and it states so the applicant can provide information regarding the property and its Historic significance it states quote many property owners have detailed knowledge of their properties including names of former owners and dates of major alterations It goes on to state that the applicant should work closely with the cultural heritage board to see how much Information is needed and whether the information at is adequate enough for the board to render a determination so our guidelines do Allow a property owner to conduct their own invest historic investigation of their property and also as far as His qualifications an architect with a professional degree in architecture plus two years of full-time experience in architecture Or a person with a state license to practice architecture is considered to be considered to be qualified as far as a SOI professional qualifications are concerned So if the board feels that the applicant did not provide enough information on their own Please provide guidance to the applicant so they may provide additional information that you find lacking Board member Fennel. Do you have any additional comments about that response at this time? I just have a question for the applicant height seems to be one of the big hot topics and If the applicant is planning to build a single story and that's the intent of a single story single family structures I'm just curious why you went to the extent to the expense of Building the height that you've done with the windows and with the dormers. What's the purpose? well the the primary purpose is storage when the first two iterations of this project in the first two iterations of this project included garages and We know what people do with garages and they don't generally park their car in it People have a lot of things that camping equipment Project equipment Hobbies things that they need a space to do it in so the attic in this case is similar to a garage had to be above the living space because Well, there just wasn't the desire to live on the second floor then you would have privacy issues with neighbors and whatnot, but So the idea is primarily it's for storage The pitch of the roof as mr. Carpenter said is driven by the angle for photovoltaics Okay If staff don't don't have any other questions right now I'm going to solicit those comments from the members of the public really quickly even though the public hearing is closed Just as a courtesy and to hear any other information that might be of value to us in making our decisions and So with that I would invite any members of the public to approach the podiums and we'll just figure out how to go in order and to make any comments you like that relate to anything you've heard since you made your comments the last time and to Just be as expeditious as you can within reason Thank you, and thank you for allowing us to comment on the the presentation I wanted to address the concept of parking and please correct me if I am wrong It's my understanding that each of the proposed units needs one covered and one half guest parking which is accounted for in the proposal and It's also my understanding that the existing two-bedroom home must have one covered and One in one half a visitor parking which are not shown in the proposal I have read that that can be immediately adjacent or pardon me immediately a budding on the street But there is no parking on that side of the street, and so that to me reads as a slight deficiency And thank you also for bringing up sensitivity of windows That's something that I didn't address initially But that second story all of those windows face neighboring parcels including my own so worse someone To inhabit the attic or were to use that attic to do other things They would be looking into the neighbors yards and into the neighbors homes When it is not technically habitable space With regard to the height this structure this one story with an attic is the same height as the past Proposed two-story structure, and we do have the plans from 2015 if you would like them We could add them to public record And then regarding the 7 11 7 12 ray duplex that is a modern build It was in fact built before the district was historic It does have very small lot lines, and it does create shade of shoes. It is a dominant visual a Dominant visual structure that is on that street So there is another reason to think about that five-foot setback, and I would Estimate and maybe someone else here could estimate a little better I'd estimate that to be about 23 feet tall, and it's very imposing Thank you. Thank you Yeah, I'm Steve Storrall 713 Tupper just to comment on the second story Ryan brought up here 2015 plans they show a spiral staircase to the second floor you don't put windows and dormers in attics you put vents This is clearly clearly Spect to build a second floor and more living space. I can provide these plans to you after the meeting as well If truly you have leeway regarding setbacks The height of this structure at 25 feet is is really monstrous and just imagine yourself In your property and your your whole eastern property line is mature growth pine trees Oaks lots of green and now all of a sudden you're just going to see walls For almost 200 feet It's incredibly imposing, please please maximize the setback Make it 50 feet put in the parking lot across the street I don't care five feet way too close and again single story This is almost criminal that I can get through planning commission as a single story to me I think this is opening up the city to potential litigation. That's all I have to say. Thank you Thank you Board members any other questions for staff of the applicant at this time I Would ask I'm sorry, sir Absolutely not go ahead sir. My name is Timothy Welch. I live at 75 Henley Street I'm in the middle of Ray Park I'm a little bit removed from the proposed project So I don't really have the objection to the height looking down into my backyard that the neighbor of this Proposal does But I grew up in this town. I've owned this property since 92 I've lived here my whole life and I've seen just the mass of sprawl that has happened And I think we have two choices. We can either build the center of the city up or we can build farther out and get more and more gridlock and I think in 30 years we will probably see self-driving cars Maybe we won't have a parking problem then because nobody will own one. We don't need to own a cow to get milk We will just subscribe to a service then the car will come get us and take us where we need to go Parking might not be a problem. I can't see in the future, but I see self-driving cars happening now I do empathize with the neighbors. I wouldn't want someone looking down into my backyard The park is definitely a zoo I can I can see why he didn't want to put windows out onto the park because they're a Few years ago. There was a murder out there and there will be another Recession in time and there will be more homeless people out there in time right now. It's fairly okay But a couple years back at any given day. There was 50 to 100 homeless people out there all doing what people need to do So to me, that's the elephant in the room really is the park and Can I interrupt you sir? Absolutely. We just want to limit comments to anything that you've heard since the public hearing that you feel is inaccurate or needs to be supplemented because we did have the public hearing earlier and Just want to keep this more driven to addressing any issues that came up during the The responses to the comments the last time around No, okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you miss on us I want to respond to the statement that the pitch of the roof is for is optimized for the solar If the entire roof was put at the pitch that that dormer is At and lowered down there would still be the same amount of space up there. You would maybe have I Don't know four feet at the at the edges of the building but you'd still have the same essential amount of storage space up there that would deal with the height objections the privacy objections and You'd still have your solar Thank you Board members any questions for staff or the applicant at this time Okay, I just wanted to make one comment This was from Patrick Streeter one of our the planner previous to Kristen a here who was working on this project the two spaces that are uncovered behind the Existing front unit are for the front unit and it's a non It's a complying non conforming use. It doesn't have to be covered It never had covered parking from when it was built in 1906 Okay, thank you. I just wanted to that's one thing I wanted to mention just that the parking analysis with regard to the Existing structure and with regard to these new structures that's been performed as to both of them and Been found to be in compliance with the zoning code. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. The parking situation for the existing house is Considered to be legal non conforming not having a covered space Should that house be intensified With an addition we may require Covered parking to conform but not in this case So I think we would like to Discuss this and ask for a member of the board to move the resolution for purposes of the discussion There's any board member willing to move the resolution that we have one resolution tonight Chair could I ask for a very brief recess been here an hour and a half. That's a good idea We're gonna take a brief recess and reconvene Say a tight five Thanks Okay, we're gonna Get back and before I Renew my request for a motion to be made for purposes of discussion on the resolution wanted to give the applicant an applicant's representative a chance to comment on that last bit that we heard from Ms. Ennis regarding the pitch and the height reduction that could be achieved by that and Just what the reaction is to that comment and anything you could share about Whether that's realistic fair unfair an improvement Detriment anything I don't really have any comment about it, but I'll refer I Didn't design the the pitch of that dormer so I'm gonna have mr. Carpenter answer that Thank you, it'd be a lot less interesting and useful And I don't think it's appropriate Okay Thank you Okay We are gonna want to share our thoughts about this to get that going Sorry, could I offer one clarifying point please so the 10-foot setback for the second if you were to consider this a second story The second story setback only applies to our one zoning districts not our three not multifamily So the same setback on the second floor. He doesn't apply when it's a multifamily type unit So I just wanted to clarify that But again being that it's in a historic district You have a lot of leeway as far as what you require as far as compatibility goes Okay, thank you appreciate the clarification So we are gonna want to discuss The project but before we do so could I get a motion For the purposes of discussion on the resolution that we have tonight I've done one of these in a while so forgive me if I I Move we approve a resolution for the cultural heritage board of the city of Santa Rosa Approving a landmark alteration permit for carpenter urban cottages located at 715 Tupper and 25 ray streets in the Burbank Gardens historic preservation district Assessors parcel Numbers zero zero nine two or one zero four Dash two oh nine or see me zero zero nine file number LMA one five dash zero one three and Call for the reading against what we say next. Thank you Does anyone second do I have a second to the motion? all right, well, I I'll second the motion and Port member debaker feels start with any comments Thank you. I have to kind of put this in the context a little bit before I get too far into my comments In many ways when I first was looking at this project a month ago or our previous review I Was actually pretty excited After seeing so many other similar projects that are infill into urban historic district settings in which the property owners have Immediately gone to maximum height maximum coverage And going this one could easily have been all 35 feet the entire depth of the lot minimum setback legally and Entirely inappropriate architecture for the neighborhood and we have seen All together too many of those in the last year and a half It is Was refreshing to me to see somebody who got The texture of the neighborhood right with small footprints spaced in a similar distance from the neighborhood And at least made the effort to reflect the scale Shape-massing of the neighborhood rather than absolutely ignoring it as so many other similar projects have been recently That's how this one has some problems Had this come in as really a single story for units of reasonable height, this would be pretty much a slam dunk But it's not and therefore we have some things to talk about we also have some issues with the historic structure report I Do take exception and I would like to see a condition that a third-party historic structures report by a qualified agent and specifically the reason for that is that the Only a Chris certified reviewer Has access to the archaeology information and that won't that won't be disclosed to the public or any non-certified individuals That can't be disclosed at the meetings But those reports would typically tell us whether this site contains or is proximate to any known archaeological sites And that information wouldn't be presented here without that that credibility that's a person's access and The proximity of this site to a native stream at what was a juncture of two streams That was recognized as the heart of Santa Rosa It means that there are some things that have gone on underground in this area and we before we approve anything Need to know or at least it needs to be filed with the city Should there not be anything found in that report? I don't have any problems moving forward with that But I suspect that that this is too sensitive of proximity to likely archaeological sites To not look at that For the rest of the board to discuss We have the the height issue is obviously something we're gonna need to talk about a little bit But the concern about looking down into the backyard is a real concern One of the things I'd like to propose for our consideration is that we condition the project that the windows Along the west elevations of these be translucent glazing Allowing the light into a storage space on the second floor if that is if this is truly a second the storage space Translucent glazing would allow the light without any view shed into the neighbor's property And I think it would solve the problems for both the neighbor and to still allow the property owner to get the light They're seeking in that second floor I Think the board should recognize the We haven't really talked about the design of the buildings much and there's a reason for it They're trying to fit it per our guidelines The size height the heights not so much proportion rhythm setbacks roof shapes Generally fit into the neighborhood They're not trying to duplicate anything per rote, but I think there are some reasonable nods to Historic styling on this for new construction that we wouldn't see if this was a square apartment block Which we've been seeing on so many other projects recently I Generally the design I find to be acceptable. I sure would love to see it lower and Maybe there's a way we can get there from here That's why that's my first round of comments Board Member Fennel. I don't have a problem with this project per se with the exception of the height if it were a single Level with the regular attic space like the majority 99% of people that live in the Burbank Gardens have For their attic space. I would be Overjoyed I would approve it immediately but this as it's as it reads with You know 10-foot ceilings in an attic space It's ridiculous It doesn't it doesn't read we don't have a lot of dormers in the Burbank Gardens the majority of our our homes our cottage style bungalow style homes and There are there are places that have added Dormer windows, but they've always been set back off of the rear of the home There's one exception on its own corner lot on Tupper and Brown Street Where the dormer window was placed at the rear of the property But the majority of our homes in the Burbank Gardens with the exception of just a few have dormer windows and This one is out of context. It's out of scope. I don't want to go down Tupper Street and see 10 feet more of massing of a Rental, you know or bungalow style like that behind What is a historic contributing property? It's I just think it's against what we We do it's against what we have as a neighborhood have wanted to see and what You know, I've we've been I've been here for what three or four years now I've never seen so many neighbors concerned and hear About one issue and I've never felt this strongly about That second story it doesn't need to be there with windows for storage if it's really storage It's almost like it's a Disneyland facade like it's great. It looks it looks nice But it's gonna wreck the front of the house. It's going to It doesn't serve a purpose it's 592 square feet. There's some beautiful examples of bungalow style Units on 600 block of mill street that are beautiful and they've been done exceptionally and If it read with the massing like that I would approve it it No No question immediately But at this size at this height at this setback. I I can't Support it so Remember Muser I'd like to thank staff for all their hard work on this project and the applicant I know you've been through a lot too and I apologize that I'm coming in at the 11th hour I would have liked to have been involved in this project earlier You know most of the Burbank Gardens is in its low density Ray Street and Tupper our medium density Medium density allows for 8 to 18 units per acre and your project puts it at 17 Pretty much at the upper end Which is kind of what medium density asked for But here's the rub and here's kind of our role here if it was just strictly an issue of Does it meet the requirements We wouldn't be here. We're here to make sure that it fits with the neighborhood Medium density changed in the 90s. It used to only be six to 15 and I think a lot of times With that change some of the historic neighborhoods, especially residential areas kind of got caught Into it and it's kind of created the situation. I don't feel 17 units per acre is compatible with and this area I Feel that the height of 25 feet Especially with four units five feet off the property line does create a wall I don't really understand why the storage areas built like it is it just Doesn't seem to make sense other than to potentially occupy it at a later time Which would create greater impact in the areas that the neighborhood has expressed in regards to parking and congestion the streets Tupper Street and the neighborhood are Very narrow. Most of the streets have parking only on one side Most passer buyers have to weave their way through to get through each other Medium density designation for this property I think is is too much for the neighborhood and For these reasons I won't be able to support this project. I Generally like this project. I'm pretty close on it. I think that it's The board member debakker's points are quite well taken. It's a point that I've had to Consider in a lot of other projects which is There are an entire spectrum of possible projects that we could envision, you know, if it were our property this that or the other thing That would go somewhere some more compatible than others. It's all along a spectrum and That there could very well be a project that is far less compatible with the neighborhood than this one and I think that architecturally It's considerate The height is I Think it's acceptable and tolerable if I were if it were my neighborhood I would find it acceptable and tolerable The density and the parking aspects of it I think are outside the scope of what I Consider relevant to the decision that I would have to make I think that I defer to the zoning code and the decisions that the city Council and the Planning Commission make with regard to the adequacy of parking and that for neighborhoods that are overburdened with parking there are parking districts that Are set up to regulate that and that our solution to parking problems is not to create more and more parking which has been proven time and again in every city in the world to Invite cars and to create more traffic. I don't think that we can Continue going that direction, but if it's the desire Of anybody to increase the burden for parking. I think it's a decision that the city council should make that I'm not going to Let that influence my decision-making on a project that I consider to be Adequate otherwise I Also understand the speculation and the concern about misuse of the attic space, but I can't base my decision-making on speculation which is really unfounded You can make an inference based on the windows and prior plans involving staircases that there could be misuse of it but I can't go that far by making Assumptions that people are going to misuse their property and misrepresent the way they're going to do things to The public to their neighbors to the city If you start going down that road It becomes very difficult to make decisions based on the facts that are before the public. So I'm not willing to do that The definition of a story I'm surprised that it's quite so flexible myself, but I also am not inclined to increase the uncertainty that people would have presenting projects to the city by having kind of a stealthy private Definition of what a story is and not relying on the building code and not revolve relying on what is in the code in black and white Which also is a caution for me when thinking about the density of the project and the height of the project which are within the bounds, you know within with bounds within the the height element and I think that the decision-making that went into the plans reflects Considerate regard for the effect of height What I don't like about the project and I wasn't around for any Previous consideration of this except for the you know the continuation is the the failure to have what I would characterize as orientation to Ray Street This would be a huge improvement to Ray Street and the city is in desperate need of the work that this project would create there and It would be a shame for an important Face of the block to be sort of disregarding Ray Street And I don't think it's consistent with the character Defining elements that are in the code that are that are printed there that shouldn't come as a surprise and that we are all concerned that the Public safety and the quality of life issues are dealt with in the city the city council continues to put homelessness as Number one or number two and its priorities every single goal-setting agenda session that they do and We all have our opinions about the homelessness issue, but I'm not willing to say that we Turn houses away from public spaces and we make as many spaces private as possible I think that's a a path toward making the public spaces inferior Fail to function and to make the problems worse we think I think that it's the Health of the city depends on engaging public spaces and That is why these neighborhoods that we consider to have character and value historically are oriented that way Houses are oriented to face the street It's it's hard to come up with a historic neighborhood or a neighborhood that people consider desirable where There are just walls for pedestrians and nothing of visual interest no engagement So that's an aspect of the project that's that's disappointing to me I Don't have a problem with the historic record here, but I am Less of a subject matter expert I don't know what my fellow board members may about what could be missing from it based on the manner in which it was prepared I Just am comfortable with the fact that the code doesn't have an explicit requirement to go quite so far and that we Take it with a grain of salt based on the quality of it and what? Can or can't be included based on the the method in which it was prepared so I think I Would apply a discount to it for not having that level of full preparation, but I wouldn't disregard it or necessarily require anything further, but It's good to get that requirement out there now if that's the desire of the board if this project comes around that it has the Historic support that the board would require to consider it So it sounds based on all these comments that there's quite a bit of interest in Changes to the project new information that would come before the board to evaluate it doesn't seem to me like there's support for an approval of the resolution with the project plans the way that they are What would staff recommend? so it as you just indicated it does appear that there's some interest from the board to have Perhaps a redesign or at least some more evaluation so what staff would recommend is if that is indeed the case to present that question and that option to the applicant and Let them the applicant team weigh in on that and see if they can consider it if they agree then One of the board members could make a friendly amendment to adjust that motion accordingly and move forward Okay So I direct this to the applicant you've heard The comments from the board and what the interests of the board are for changes to the project Just ask for what reactions you have and is that of interest to Consider making some of those changes work with staff and then come back to the board for consideration and amended project Thank you. I'm going to defer to mr. Carpenter again Well, you should probably realize that this is my fifth iteration. So you're asking me to go through a sixth iteration Every time I come this is a new set of people with a new set of Requirements and levels of understanding You know what I'm hearing this committee Saying is they would like the project to face Ray Park They would like it to be similar to the duplex That already faces Ray Park they would like it to You know have a There is no certification for historic architecture in the state of California or in this country, but there is an Application for having access to the WISC library Which I'm qualified to do I can do that I can come back next month with that If you'd rather I could pay $7,500 to have historic architect in this city To do it, but no, I don't really want to spend $7,500 and I don't think it's right for the public to have to do that this says That this committee can do it. So I'm asking this committee to do it You can go look at the evidence that's in my report and Surfight yourself You know my original Interation was three stories with a garage on the first level My next iteration was two stories With a garage adjacent to it my next iteration was Just two stories and now I'm a story and a attic So you want me to come back with just one story and no attic Is that what I'm hearing but I still have to put the vote of what takes on it because codes are going to require that come January So there's a lot for me to consider considering how far down this road. I've come and a lot of ways It's not just You know, it's it's been a dream of mine to build an urban cottage for a long time it really has and I've gotten nothing but fear and resentment From all sides For this idea, you know, it's 576 square feet That's about the size of a hotel room, you know, it's still too big so You know, I would like to take some time to read re-evaluate the Boundaries because they keep changing Do another code analysis do another zoning code analysis with the planning department find out really what I'm allowed to do And what you're allowed to ask for and then come back to you with another proposal, okay So mr. Rose or miss Jimmonds best way to do that would be a friendly amendment to continue to a date uncertain or Yeah, please go ahead. So procedurally it would be a friendly amendment To the motion maker an acceptance and what staff would recommend I think would be beneficial to all is to give a specific direction as you can I think it obviously it would be continued to a date uncertain for redesign But if there are particular items that you would like this applicant to address staff would recommend that you Indicate those Yes I'd like to put on another option at least for a discussion is that I'd be willing to entertain friendly amendments to put potentially of reduce the height by three feet to Put up secure glazing on the second floor facing the neighbor and to require a professional historic structure report that could be just resubmitted to staff Potentially and approve it based on that if the other board members be willing to go there So that would be in the manner of the guidance that mr. Rose just Asked for it wouldn't be in the manner of a legally binding condition on anything or it could be either That's correct. It could be a consider Okay, so mr. Rose if you don't mind you could just walk me through again the Way that we could move forward here So the motion on the table is for an approval there was a second That's the item that's being discussed so that could be amended any board member could offer a friendly amendment could indicate The items that board member debacle just indicated or any other items for that matter The original motion maker would have to accept that and then that's the item for discussion and it could be voted on or what Most likely would happen would there there would be somebody just additional discussion and then finally a vote on that Just any item that gets to a vote I would recommend one last double check with the applicant to make sure that it's clear that the applicant understands What those conditions are? Before the final vote is taken okay, so this is a friendly amendment to Change the description of the project perhaps to include elements that are of interest to the board and then Actually now that I think about it because it wasn't a Motion is for approval. It could just be amending that for the additional conditions that were indicated Okay for approval all right So perhaps the board could have its discussion about elements that it would like to see and then there could be a friendly amendment that would Introduce all of those into the resolution and then the board could vote on that Including taking a vote to continue to a date uncertain Really all of the options are on the table So I thought I heard it was for an approval that could bring if a report is in order that report could be evaluated by staff It could be a continuance to a date uncertain, but you are correct with the items that have been Discussed now there could be additional discussion with all board members even before the friendly amendment goes forward. Okay, that probably makes sense So Let's discuss the staff's request for as much clarity as possible to give the applicant for the members who are here to avoid Bringing anything up that we could have brought up now if the applicant chooses to come before us again Board member debaker you just mentioned the three-foot height reduction some Secure glazing to prevent a view shed from the second story a second story from the attic Windows the glazing up there and then a requirement that a historic report be resubmitted and that it include the materials That would be accessible by a person with the level of access that you describe Okay, so we do have those let's go one by one For any additional the most Concrete way that we could describe it or straightforward way about Elements that we would expect in a return project or that we would desire in our return version of the project Board member Fennel for my approval. We would need more than three feet Of reduction on that property it would need to I would like to see it in scale with the existing front fist front home and Not be a huge lumbering thing behind That drives your attention away from the historic on contributors. So my Three feet is not going to do it for me would need to be more in line as a single-family home with You know a nice little attic And any other around besides the height that okay I just wanted to make sure that's the only thing new that I that I would say is I won't I won't be able to Approve of it with three feet reduction only Okay Board member Muser I'd like to see the density reduced to 15 units per acre I'd like to see the heights Reduced and if they are if it is truly just a single story structure for it to resemble a single story structure and Kind of eliminate the concerns of the the neighbors that the Way it's configured currently Could be then converted into living space in the future if it is going to be living space Then identify it as such if it's not going to be living space Then let's lower the heights because the height is one of the Big issues on the table right now. So those are my two things density to 15 And reduce the height Okay, mr. Rose you will have a comment. Yes, so the the idea of a friendly amendment to add these conditions For the approval was with regard to the motion that's on the table based on some of the discussion that I'm hearing there seems to be some Still rather significant changes that some members would like to see another option that we haven't discussed is the option for a denial And so the board could take an action right now to deny this project It is appealable to the city council and that's another option the board should be considering and also could have a discussion with the applicant If the applicant wishes to have an up-or-down vote on this project now as proposed So we've got some differences of differences of opinion up here about height for instance and the level of reduction that some Need to see you want to see Sounds to me like it could be difficult to put those into anything that gets for votes in that case I'm struggling to see how we translate that into anything that is a component of Anything that goes forward except as a recommendation to the client to the client to the applicant to Consider the comments of the board So I'm just having a hard time figuring how we factor any of this conversation into anything that is anything other than advisory Correct, and that was why I made the suggestion that the board may wish to entertain a discussion about regarding a denial. Okay all right and board member debaker any Attributes besides the ones that you listed that you were for particular interest in thank you chair I first of all like I don't think I could make my own friendly amendment So there would have to be some support for the ideas that I suggested from other members in order that to actually be a friendly amendment I would also want to put one other consideration for discussion on the board is a Possible rotation of the northernmost unit to face Ray Street would be one of the things that Might be something to consider if none of those have support of the other board members to be a friendly amendment If none of those elements we should just go ahead and take the vote and Wrap this up. Okay All right I have interest in the rotation of the unit, but I would have been Prepared to vote in favor of the project notwithstanding that because I believe that the compatibility is sufficient regardless So it's not in my I'm not interested in putting any condition because it would be too difficult for me to describe What constitutes rotation? I don't I think that that's a good word for it But I just think that's I am uncomfortable with how complicated the idea of rotation would be and whether it has to be 90 degrees or Substantially 90 degrees or substantially You know, so I I wouldn't support a condition like that, but it sounds like The board is not Prepared to take a vote on Go ahead mr. Rose any help is appreciated. Yeah, yeah, so Motion on the table is for an approval if that does not pass if that's denied That's an effective denial and the applicant can appeal that as well Okay Okay, so unless I've got any further comments the Motion was made to approve the resolution and I think we'll take a vote on that. All right Okay, the motion was made by Board member to bacher seconded by the chair and Board members your votes, please we need to do We're taking voice votes tonight. Okay Board member debacle your vote, please I'll go ahead and call board members names and you can you can respond with I or no or abstain board board member debacle on the spot here I Still fundamentally think the project's on the right track. It's got some serious issues. I Board member fennel nay Board member muser Chair Edmondson I and The motion fails two to two and That concludes item 6.1 Thanks everybody and we'll move on to item seven. She's board member reports I See that we have another flyer here at Ardeus about compliance with SB 1343 training about Workplace sexual harassment. This is a state law requirement incoming board member muser You may have already been told about this, but if not Just check, please with the city clerk about When you need to comply with this by but there's a required in-person training that you'll have to attend As a result of some new legislation having to do with harassment in a supervisory context, so It's critical to comply with this and I'm so just follow up on that Please and any board members who are not currently in compliance with that, please do so and here's a list of some upcoming in-person Trainings where you can satisfy that requirement Any board member reports No, okay Next is department reports Any department reports? No different reports. No, okay Patrick any department okay All right, and that is it for today. Thanks everybody and we are adjourned