Commission asks for detailed grading, glazing and privacy analysis before finalizing Tureci rebuild

The Planning Commission reviewed Concept Design Study DS24046, a full‑demolition and rebuild proposal for a two‑story home on a forested lot near Ocean Avenue, and adopted the concept with conditions after extensive questioning about excavation, basement treatment and neighborhood impacts.

Staff explained that the project proposed substantial excavation (staff cited 971 cubic yards of cut and 9 cubic yards of fill in its report) to accommodate a basement and subterranean garage; staff recommended a volume study and additional geotechnical information before final approval, and flagged potential conflicts between proposed grading and the city’s tree protection setbacks. Staff also identified nonconforming plate heights and recommended revisions to bring the design into compliance.

Architect Beth Wartsama and the owners described design choices intended to protect neighbor views and the village character while improving site drainage and materials. The applicant said the majority of cut would be in a basement and that measures were proposed to reduce surface disturbance. Commissioners pressed the team on: the total grading disturbance, the light‑well and basement code interpretation, stormwater and erosion control measures, the size of a proposed front deck and the operational noise profile of a proposed parking lift.

Neighbors raised privacy and noise concerns, particularly about a proposed elevated deck and a hot tub that would sit close to an adjacent living room. Bruce and Linda Taylor, who own an historic home next door, said the roof‑deck geometry and proximity would harm their views and privacy. Architect Eric Miller (for a different project earlier) and the Tureci team discussed design mitigations such as retaining hedges, green roofs and screening planters.

The commission voted to accept the concept study with explicit direction: provide a quantitative grading/disturbance analysis (with special attention to the west elevation), reduce glazing on the west elevation and address deck/privacy impacts to the neighbor to the south (e.g., reduce deck size or demonstrate mitigation). The commission also required compliance with plate‑height limits and other standard concept conditions (volume study, tree protection and stormwater plans) prior to final details review.

What’s next: Applicant must return with a grading disturbance analysis, revised elevations addressing glazing/door sizes and a plan showing mitigation for the southern neighbor’s privacy concerns before the project can be scheduled for final review.