Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Town of Los Altos Hills June 10, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, SECOND UNIT, CABANA AND POOL; LANDS OF RUTNER; 28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE; File#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND. FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Direr q RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND This project was continued from the Commission's May 27th meeting, for the purposes of: 1) allowing the project architect to meet with residents of the Via Ventana area to discuss possible modifications to the rear elevation of the design with the intent to soften the visual impact; and 2) to solicit comments, if any, from the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee (ARC). DISCUSSION On June 4th, the project architect and contractor met with several neighbors from the Via Ventana area, as well as Rick and Charlie Ellinger of the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee, and the Planning Director, to discuss the project design. Several relevant issues were discussed and suggestions made as follows: 1. Windows - It was suggested that there should be some reduction in the number of windows and particularly in the number of "types/sizes" of windows. The architect indicated a willingness to delete at least a couple of windows and to present a more standard size and type of window, especially for all of the bedrooms, on the rear elevation. The changes are reflected on the revised rear elevation, and staff believes the modifications substantially address the issue. 2. Trellises - The architect suggested adding trellises at two locations in the rear of the house, to be covered with vines which would help to break up the stucco appearance. The revised plans reflect the trellises on the floor plans and rear elevation, and condition #2 has been modified to include the trellises as integral parts of the landscape plan, when reviewed. 3. Landscaping - It was suggested that live oak trees would be appropriate for this site, as they grow faster than other oaks, are evergreen, and are fire resistant. The architect responded that such oaks could be planted in several clusters around the perimeter of the development: It was also suggested that landscaping close to the home would be important to provide some immediate impact, and a couple of spots between the trellises and the pool were identified as possible locations. Condition#2 has been modified to require that these features be incorporated into the landscape plan and site development review. Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 2 4. Wingwall near Garage - It was suggested that a wingwall of stone near the garage would provide a curve and transition to the house, similar to that proposed on the front elevation at the entry. The architect felt this was feasible and that it would also help to break up the visibility of the garage, and the wall is shown on the revised rear elevation. 5. Colors - Darker earth tone colors were stressed as helping to blend the house with the site, and a consistent pattern of roofing was felt to be critical as most of the Via Ventana houses look down on the site. Light reflectivity values of 40 were suggested for the paint color, and it was hoped that the stone accents would not be too light. Condition#4 has been modified to require earth tones of gray, brown or beige tones for the paint color, stone and roofing, with a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, and that the roofing be a consistent color tone (not highly variegated). Mrs. Rutner has reviewed the Town's color board and has indicated that such a condition would be acceptable. 6. Cabana - Neighbors noted that the plans did not include an elevation for the cabana, and that the roof over the cabana would be 400 square feet, equivalent to a two-car garage. Staff commented that the area would count as development area, and it appeared it was not presently counted that way. The architect suggested an open trellis instead of a roof, which would not count as development area, but others responded that the area below was likely to be paved, rather than grass. The revised plans include elevations of the cabana and show a trellis over the grass area, rather than a roof. 7. Fifth Parking Space - The architect was asked how the applicants would accommodate the fifth parking space (approximately 200 square feet), i.e., where would development area be deleted? The architect responded that pavement around the pool would be eliminated, but it was noted that there already is relatively little pavement around the pool, and little patio or deck area left to lose. It was suggested that perhaps the 200 square feet should come from the house. The revised plans show the fifth parking space along the driveway on the site plan, and reflect a reduction of 100 square feet of floor area from the house, and another 100 square feet of development area from around the pool. Condition#1 has been modified to delete the previous requirement to add the fifth parking space. Revised conditions of approval are shown in ctrikethru and bold print. A complete set of revised plans, including the revised site plan, are attached (and a set have been forwarded to the neighbors), along with a revised Worksheet#2. • Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board The Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board received copies of the architectural plans only a few days before the Planning Commission's last hearing, and has not met to review them as a full Committee. Mr. Ellinger, the Committee chairman, participated in the meeting with the Via Ventana residents, and provided the attached letter outlining his concerns about the review process. It is staff's understanding that the full Committee is not likely to review the proposal, but if additional information is forthcoming, it will be provided to the Commission. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have. Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. June 3, 1998 letter from Pong Ng 3. Worksheet#2 4. May 29, 1998 letter from Rick Ellinger 5. Revised development plans cc: Bob and Peggy Rutner Larry Bridgeman Pong Ng 10632 Magdalena Ave. 4546 El Camino Real#A-14 404 Saratoga Ave. Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Los Altos, CA 94022 Santa Clara, CA95050 Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LANDS OF RUTNER, 28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE FILE#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The basement exiting and window wells shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code. The plans shall be revised to add a fifth - - -- __. _ - _ _ __ __ - _ _ _ - t- t. The revised plans and a revised worksheet #2 shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check Any further modifications to the approved plans requires prior approval of the Planning Director or Planning Commission depending upon the scope of the changes. 2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development Hearing. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. Special • attention shall be given to planting along the west of the new development to screen the residence and outdoor areas from the homes across Page Mill Road. Live oak trees shall be emphasized in perimeter plantings. Trees between the pool and the house shall also be included, as shall landscaping of the trellises. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection, unless the Planning Director finds that unusual circumstances, such as weather or site conditions, require that planting be delayed. In those instances, a deposit of an amount equal to the cost of landscape materials and installation, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be submitted to the Town. Landscaping shall in any event be installed not later than six months after final inspection, or the deposit will be.forfeited. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening purposes (including the redwood trees which have already been planted and any additional screening required by the Town) or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer), but not to exceed $5,000.00, shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 4. Paint colors shall earth tones of gray, beige or brown and shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less and shall be of a color tone consistent with the paint Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 5 colors and with little variegation. White trim area should be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, garage doors, columns, railings, and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s)prior to final inspection. 5. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction. 6. Specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall generally be downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source or lighting should not be directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed within the setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 7. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees, in particular the oak tree located adjacent to the driveway, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. 8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 9. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated January 7, 1998, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall specifically address the following items as part of the plan review: 1) proposed drainage outfall trenches with respect to the potential for adverse slope stability impacts; and 2) the adequacy of proposed foundation grade beam reinforcement to resist anticipated uplift pressures. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 6 inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as built)project approval. For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated January 7, 1998. 10. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the development area (11,340 square feet) and building coverage (4,700 square feet) established for the property by Council approval is the maximum level of development currently allowed by the Town. The Planning Department will prepare the statement and the signed, notarized document shall be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 11. Standard swimming pool conditions: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off- site. b. Drainage outfall'structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety. d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation and screening. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection. 13. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium between November 1 and April 1 except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 14. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 15. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and cabana, and prior to final inspection, the locations and elevations of the new residence and cabana shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 7 licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations shown on the approved Site Development plan. The location and elevation of the pool shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan prior to final inspection. At the time of framing inspection for the new residence and cabana, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan 16. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 17. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Matadero Creek Lane and Matadero Creek Court and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 18. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways,prior to final inspection and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plancheck. 19. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. 20. The property owner shall be required to connect to public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. If it is determined that any construction is required to be done in the public right of way, an encroachment permit shall be required to be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to commencement of construction of the sewer lateral. 21. The IIB pathway along Matadero Creek Lane shall be required to be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final inspection. Rutner: June 10, 1998 Page 8 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 22. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of 4 inches with a 3/8 inch stroke. 23. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall install a fire sprinklering system to assure that adequate flow is available to the residence. The design of the fire sprinklering system shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 24. Fire apparatus access and turnaround shall be constructed and maintained in accordance to approved Fire Department requirements. In addition, the driveway shall be installed to the satisfaction of the fire department prior to start of construction. 25. One private on-site fire hydrant shall be installed at a location to be determined by the Fire Department. The hydrant shall be installed an approved by the Fire Department prior to final inspection. The design and location of the hydrant shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23 AND 25 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos • School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until June 10, 1999). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. June 3, 1998 J JUN - 4 1998 Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road T�►�i � :� � Los Altos Hills, California 94022 Attn.: Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director Re: Rutner Residence -Design Changes with Neighbors' Input Dear Curtis: As discussed during our 6-3-1998 meeting with the Via Vantana neighbors, I am writing to summarize the design changes in the Rutner Residence. Project Size: In the current application, the building areas totaled 7,502 square feet. In order to accommodate 200 square feet for the fifth parking space, we have reduced the main house-by 1,00 square feet. We reduced the entry by 14 square feet, and took a foot put of the width of the house at the family room section. This reduces the first floor by 59 square feet, the second floor by 41 square feet. The new floor area for the main house is 7,301 square feet. The cabana remains 101 square feet. The new floor area is 7,402 square feet. Incidentally, the basement also shrinks by 30 square feet down to 1,853 square feet. The attached revised sketches illustrate where the area reductions occur. Building Coverage: Currently, the proposed building coverage is 4,443 square feet. With the first floor reduced 59 square feet, the new building coverage is 4,384 square feet. The Council approved building coverage area is 4,700 square feet; the remaining building coverage area is 316 square feet. Development Area: To fully accommodate the 200 square feet needed for the fifth parking space, Giuliani &Kull removed 132 square feet from the patios and deck area. The revised development area is 12,999 square feet. The Council approved development area is 11,340 square feet; the remaining building coverage area is 41 square feet. View from Via Vantana: We have made the following revisions to the rear elevation: 1. All the bedroom windows are standardized to be 2'-6" wide by 4'-6" tall. They occur in pairs in each bedroom except the master bedroom suite area. 2. We added trellis between the family room and the library, and outside the office by the garage. 3. We replaced the decorative column at the garage front with a stone-veneer column and an attached curved wing wall. 4. We added stone veneer to the Cabana walls. 5. We eliminated the side windows at the library. The entire sidewalls are now stone. We have attached ten sets of architectural and civil engineering plans incorporating these revisions. We believe that we had made a genuine effort to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighbors. We appreciate the valuable input from all the Via Vantana neighbors, resulting in a much-improved rear elevation. Again, as stated before, the major differences to our credit is that we have 4 plus acres and we are below the maximum deign height of 555' by approximately 10'. We hope that you will agree that this design meets with the intent of the design guideline and should be approved as proposed. If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 985-6048. Thanks for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Chun Pong Ng cc: Mr. & Mrs. Bob Rutner Mr. Larry Bridgman Mr. Rick Ellinger—with attachment Ms. Viole McMann—with attachment . . TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS - 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills,California 94022 • (415)941-7222 • FAX(415)941-3160 • • PLANNING DEP / • . . .• ' WORKSHEET #2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN:IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME F_o3�.r Q`,..r_f,,,_ , PROPERTY ADDRESS 2.65„,c„, F,t -0.o c¢c c.R t-7E.Ic L..f+e CALCULATED BY -- Mac• H cL.f,,J 8t ee4 c, N(:,. 1 DATE ( - 4 -,1 S . L DEVELOPMENT AREA- (SQUARE FOOTAGE) .. :,,...' -�. Existing..,:::-.--- .�. ._-- Proposed Total (Additions or Deletions) A. House and Garage (fromPart B) ,_Jen- 1, 30 -7, I, B. Decking : .g- :.c;)- -8- C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100'-along centerline) - 2,244 2, 2-44 D. Patios and Walkways . --E - 418 4-78 E. Tennis Court -e, - -41- • -4S- F. F. Pool and Decking --Q- 1111 5 u.0 Ts G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) I of 101 H. Any other coverage (BrsErer',-) .a- C105 ') 18 53 Dit - s ro-r c.,,,r, TOTALS $ II , 2et 1 -2'11 idc.'-'-ipEZ I,Itc 3•r, 3%e CJ cs cc'L�. @ ler. cawirriAzz 0s ill SA) Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (£gym Workaitcet-#) I 1, 1`Fo P r-Y.TA0.:7=0 Ra-1t oao,.,+Ar"•s:. .REM,4-141 At Cj = 4'I S62.- FT- 2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed • Total (Additions or Deletions) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor -- Z 70 -270 b. 2nd Floor __ x,_/41 , 147 c. Attic and Basement -• ( i i?'5 3 ) ( I ,8 53 ) d. Garage ;. . -.- 8g4 - . /134- B. B4"B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor --e- 101 l o l b. 2nd Floor $ $- c Attic and Basement _ - TOTALS _, )- 7, 4-0 -z , 7,4-07, Sent by: QUANTUM VISION INC. 6504048150 05/29/98 4:28PM JetIx Job 90 Page 2/2 Architectural Review Committee Matadero Creek Lane Los Altos Hills Friday morning,29 May, 1998 Curtis Williams,Planner • Cc:Planning Commissioners,City Council Re: Your request for Architectural Committee Review, Lot 7 Application for a residence, Matadero Creek Lane Per your telephone request last night,I will ask the members of the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee to review the plans for lot 7. By a chance encounter,one of the members of the committee met with Larry Bridgeman,the builder. So far as I know,no one has met with Pong Eng,the architect,nor have we had any discussions with the owners since the last review by the Town CounciL Larry indicated that he would give us copies of the plans as a courtesy but he noted that we were no longer officially in the loop and he had no obligation to do so. The building plan was here Sunday but the Committee members were not in town until Thursday morning.The Planning Commission already met last Wednesday.Last night I saw these plans andithe earliest we may be able to have the committee together is Sunday. We will do this at your request and the wishes of the Planning Commission if you are convinced there is merit in doing so. You should note that the impression conveyed by Larry Bridgeman is held,I feel,by quite a few others,as the Council systematically overruled the Committee and the process established in setting up the Committee,as well as overruled their own Planning Commission. You are asking us to review the back elevation architecturally to soften it. We will supply our opinion on ways to do this but we are not a design center. You will recall that this view is a concern we expressed before,and it was expressed strongly by the people living on Via Ventanna. From the comments of Wednesday's PC meeting,it appears nothing has changed on the plan style except some numbers on size. If it meets these numbers,it is likely compliant with specific requirements even though guidelines aren't being satisfied. Is the time worth it?Would it result in an improved design? I'd like to get a house built and dispense with a process that may be viewed as simply a time wasting activity. Please confirm that the Council also wishes to have the back elevation softened on this application before we waste the applicants'time and our own in an unnecessary debate. I'm sure Larry, Pong and the Ruiners want to get on with building. Maybe you can find a way to address softening without such a lengthy and divisive administrative process. It seems few residents are satisfied with the official process in this town on matters like this. As a result the Council must short circuit the process, leaving few people satisfied.They should be guardians of the process but instead are frequently now overruling earlier organized group"decisions"or recommendations. Process and information required:One Via Ventanna resident called here. Via Ventanna residents feel they too should have a look at this and should be noticed. Some are within the 300 foot rule for notice. Others are visually impacted by any Maiadero Creek construction on the upper portion of the subdivision. The plans we have to consider consist of four sheets. I don't have copies for the whole committee,only three sets. In this case, we would take copies to the residents an the upper portion of the Matadero Creek Lane and Plane as well as Via Ventanna.This represents about 20 households.To be fair,this takes at least two weeks and more than a hundred man hours. Only sheet 4 is germane to the request to consider"softening the rear elevation;"it shows elevation drawings. We would normally have rendering sketches for this topic and a plan showing the siting and grading of the property,i.e.,the views that you request that we consider. We don't require models but they are very useful in these situations and I had one done myself for the council for my own property. A model can be photographed from any viewpoint and lighted appropriately to show sun angles and shadows. The siting plan would normally show vegetation and landscaping. We can work with most any of these forms but I think we need more that a single sheet with flat wall elevations. If you can add anything here it would be a big help. Probable considerations and outcome:"Softening"usually includes "mitigation"or"hiding from view."Typically in LAH we require trees to block views and break upsilhouettes of buildings. It can include earthen berms with plantings. Softening can also include use of natural materials such as rock rather than brick and stucco. It includes having flowing lines,especially curves,rather than straight lines and right angles. Softening can include adding overhangs with shadows,darker colors, breaking up massing or even adding architectural details that pull your eye to a better part of the building. This committee did not receive notice that this project was on the Planning Commission agenda last Wed evening. If we were noticed,we would have responded. I am still willing to try and help. You arc doing a yeoman's service helping to drive this forward. Keep up the good work, Curtis.. Sincerely, Rekj:iititge'