Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening.

I'm going to call the meeting to order of the Fairfax Planning Commission, April 16th, 2026. The meeting is being held in the Fairfax Women's Club. It's also being held virtually on Zoom and is being broadcast on channels 27 and 99 and live streamed on the town's website.

May I have the roll call, please? Jansen?

Here.

Petrone?

Here.

Pfeffer?

Here.

Newton? Here. Chair Swift? Here.

Now we're going to go to approval of the agenda. And before we do that, I want to mention that item 161, Bolinas Road, which was continued to this meeting, And was consideration of a cannabis building business permit application, a parking variance and a sign application has been postponed. It'll be noticed when it is complete and ready for review.

So can I have staff would like to take the minutes off the agenda as well can continue them to the next meeting. Thank you.

So can I have a motion on what's remaining on the agenda?

Yeah, I'll move to approve the agenda with the notes given with respect to items one in the minutes. Second.

You want to roll call? Okay. Jansen?

Aye.

Petrone?

Yes.

Pfeffer?

Yes.

Newton?

Aye.

Chair Swift? Yes. I'm going to read the meeting protocol. The chair shall maintain order at the meetings in accordance with Robert's rules of order. And the planning commission has responsibility to be a model of respectful behavior in order to encourage community participation and citizen input at planning commission meetings. The planning commission and the audience are expected to refrain from using profane language. and or ridiculing the character or motive of Planning Commission members, staff, or members of the public, and to maintain the standards of tolerance and civility. I'm going to now open it for public comments on non-agenda items. Anyone who wishes to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission can do so now.

They can also do so by email or via Zoom.

Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to make comments during public open time? No. Anyone on Zoom? I see no hands raised, Chair Swift. Okay. I'm going to close public comment on non-agenda items, and I'm going to go on to item two. Okay. Thank you.

All right, so this is at 200 Cascade Drive, and if you went by, you noticed that they already have a permit to replace the foundation underneath this house. This house has needed some maintenance for quite some time, and now the applicant has turned in a project to add a 152-square-foot third bedroom. The parking structure is kind of collapsing, and so he's going to remove that and widen it to a two-car parking carport. Staff, whenever anyone's adding a bedroom, we never support not at least trying to provide the required number of spaces. So he worked to move the front retaining wall back a little bit so that he could get room for a car parking space. in the same area where cars pull off and park anyway, but they'll be moved further back so that he can provide the public works director's request for a 48-inch wide sidewalk along the frontage. He's also proposing to build a little porch roof cover over the top of the stairs there and and put some lattice around the bottom of the stairs. So just because the site is so small and it's steep and it was built, where did I say it was built? 1922. The house is located very close to the front of the property. There aren't large side setbacks where you can try to get around the house and try to put in more parking. So it's going to require A conditional use permit, it's going to require a minimum side yard setback variance and a front yard setback variance to rebuild and expand the existing carport. And I'm retaining walls aren't going over any permitted height and he's requesting a variance to have compact parking spaces because the garage. The carport foundation hits the foundation of the house. You can't make it any deeper. So you really can only get, I think they're going to be 8 by 16 feet in size instead of the required 9 by 19. And we were able to come up with recommended findings for approval. So we're recommending that you approve the project. It will be an improvement to the property. and we've included the resolution that sets forth the conditions for approval. And that would conclude my report.

Does the Commission have any questions for staff?

Oh. Yes, I do. Thank you. If I look at the drawings, the two-carport is 18 by 19 interior size. You mentioned 16.

I was using a 16 because that's our compact car parking space stall size.

Okay. So, yeah, but the plan is it's 18 instead of 90. It's a foot shy of what you would otherwise do.

Right.

Right. And it's wide enough. It's wider than necessary.

It may meet the width of our standard parking spot sizes, but it's not going to meet the length. So I just said... He's requesting variances to have compact spaces.

But just 12 inches. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. I was a little confused with the title of the resolution. And wait, there was another one. Oh, okay. Did we change the title? Okay. So... A resolution of the Fairfax Planning Commission approving application number 2606 for a conditional use permit. And that's the use permit to construct a third bedroom, a front porch, construct a two-car cardboard and reconfigure the property frontage to rebuild the front access stairway and front retaining wall. Is that right?

Well, the conditional use permit is required because the site doesn't meet the minimum size and width requirements. So any kind of improvements that are made require a conditional use permit. But if you think it needs to be reworded, that's fine.

It's confusing because it goes directly from a variance for three compact parking stalls. And then it says to construct a third bedroom.

To construct a third bedroom, a front porch.

Is that the variance for all those things? Should there be a comma after stalls? Because it looks like a list, but I was thinking you were just talking about the variance for the three stalls.

Yeah, so when I do these resolutions, I usually just say all the discretionary permits that are required, and then I describe the project.

But if it's confusing, then we should figure out a way to... Well, can you list the variances first, and then everything that's not subject to a variance? I mean... So what you're saying is all the variances...

Put it this way. The bedroom doesn't require any variances. The bedroom meets all the setback requirements, but it requires a conditional use permit because the site doesn't meet the minimum size and width requirements.

Could you start out with saying that it is looking... Approving an application for a front setback variance, minimum side yard setback variance, combined side yard setback variance, driveway variance for a second driveway, and variance for three compact parking stalls and a conditional use permit to construct.

The bedroom. Sure, we can do that.

The three-bedroom, the front porch, the two-car carport, and reconfigure the property frontage to rebuild the front access stairway. I'm trying to fit all of what you've written in this title into something that I understand.

So you want the use permit taken out of the beginning. I got it. And then you want it put before the bedroom and the front porch, right?

Yeah, before to construct A.

Right. Got it. I can make that change.

And then I want to talk a little bit about the sidewalk you mentioned. So it's going to be like if somebody was going down, and I know the sidewalk doesn't go very far, but if somebody happened to be going down that sidewalk, would they have a problem going across the front of the carport?

They shouldn't. They're going to have to submit plans to the public works director who's going to look at everything and make sure that it meets her requirements so that the sidewalk can be usable for pedestrians and people with strollers.

Okay. Okay. And the sidewalk, even the part where the third stall is going to be?

The plans were given to the public works director. So she had those when she made those conditions. So I'm assuming, and she's, she lives in town, so she's probably familiar with the area. So those were the conditions that she requested that we put in place.

I went by there the other day and I saw a bunch of like, um, you know, appliances, a washer, maybe dryer. Is that carport going to have electrical

I don't believe it is. It's going to be concrete walls. They may just be moving it there temporarily. That wasn't there the last time the building official and I went.

It was totally empty just for cars and storage?

Okay. I don't really know, but you can have lights in your garage, but it didn't have any lights before. That would be reviewed by the building department and our plan checkers to make sure everything Meets code.

Okay. Those are, I might have a few more when we get to the resolution edits, but that's it for now. Thanks.

So I had a question on the reso title too. So it mentions a front porch, but I'm trying to,

You can call it whatever you want. It's a cover over just the top of the stairs.

It's the landing of the stairs that the applicant is looking to put a cover over it as part of the roof. But it's not a front porch. And I think it's better described in the staff report or elsewhere. But it's not, when you read front porch, it's like, A front porch.

Yeah, he called it a gabled roof at the front entrance. Do you want to call it that instead? A gabled roof over the front entrance.

But is it over the stairs and the landing?

No, if you look at the elevation on page A201, the last page, it has a nice picture of it. It's just a little roof. So if you come up the stairs, you won't be standing in the rain if you knock on the door and people don't answer the door quickly.

The PDF version does not show that.

You don't have a page A201?

We do, but it does not show a roof over the stairs.

House elevation.

That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. There's no roof over the stairs. It's just over the top landing.

Oh, stairs on the right.

Only over the top landing, not the bottom landing. I see. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Yeah. I just want to be sure I'm understanding everything as it relates to the third parking spot. So where the plan safe future sidewalk, that's as a result of our DPW director requesting clearance for the pedestrian right of way, right? Right. And am I correct in reading the plans that from the new pushback retaining wall to the beginning of that four foot clearance, it's eight feet, six inches.

Right.

And is this third parking space something that the applicant initially requested, or is it solely based upon staff?

It's solely based on staff. Whenever anyone is adding another bedroom to a house, we require them to at least make some attempt to meet the minimum required parking requirements. So that was fueled by staff, and we can let go of it if it's not something. Although they're going to continue to park there because they parked there now.

Sure, sure, sure. Yeah, that's all my questions. I think I have more to say on parking when we get to the deliberation.

Any other questions for staff? I'm going to open the public comment. Is the applicant here?

He is available online. Mr. I'm sorry, Bartolome. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.

I'm here. I can assume you can hear me OK. We can.

If you have anything you'd like to say about your application, and also the commission may have questions for you.

Yeah, no, I'd be happy to. I just wanted to introduce myself so that you know I was here. I'm the owner and the John, the person who did the drawings, just wanted to comment on the few things you asked about. The washer and dryer was existing in the house, and we moved it to the garage so they could work in there. But it's not intended to remain in the garage. It's not even a garage. It's a carport. So that's that question. And I think you already worked out that there's no front porch. It's just a small roof over the landing. And regarding the parking, I didn't initially show a third spot because I thought it was automatically a third spot because everyone parks in that kind of large right of way. It's nice to know there's a third spot. I'm happy to do a sidewalk or happy to take it out and just leave it all concrete, whatever the commission wants. Otherwise, I'm just here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have a question for the applicant? No, thank you. Are there any other public comments on this application? Come up to the dais, please. Thank you.

Like this? Okay. I just have one question. Is the ridge line or the roof of this house going to be raised in any way from its current elevation? Could you just introduce yourself? Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Joseph Esparza. I'm the occupant of 192 Cascade, two houses down. That house is to the south of me.

No, it's not.

So it's not going to raise the elevation at all in any way.

You mean, you mean when you look at it being, it's lifted, lifted up so they can pour the new foundation. Are you wondering if the whole house is moving up?

Yeah. The whole house is part of the construction going to be raising that roof line permanently above where it's at now.

I don't believe so, but, but I think the applicant can tell you, you know, the foundation was so shoddy that usually when you have to put in a new foundation, the house does go up like a foot, you know, so you'd, but it's, it's not like they're raising the roof line. They're replacing a failing foundation under the House and bringing it up to today's code, which sometimes raises the House. So just ask the applicant.

Is that possible? Can you tell me if the ridgeline or the elevation of the roof is going to be raised in any degree?

Did you want me to reopen the applicant at this time? Sorry, cut.

Yeah, I can tell you for certain that it's not being raised. And it won't even be raised a foot like Linda suggested. It's only going to be raised whatever it takes to make it level, which it can't be more than a couple of inches. Understood. Thank you. And that's only at the front. Thanks.

Okay. And the last thing is, will there be any construction that... It's closer to the property line on either side of the house, or is it just going to be existing construction aside from the concrete in the front or the sidewalk?

Can staff answer that? Yes, I can. There's a bedroom addition being proposed behind the house in the corner where it's like in an L, but that bedroom is not going out as far as the existing house wall.

Okay.

So... The answer is no.

Thank you very much. Those were my only questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone on Zoom other than the applicant?

Sorry, I have the applicant still available if there's anything you'd like to know.

Does the commission have any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. I'm going to close public comment and bring it back for discussion to the commission.

Oh, sorry. So I think it's, to start with the parking situation, I think what is proposed is a significant improvement from what there is now. The existing garage is too narrow and there are now two spots under the carport that are sufficiently wide, wider than required. You're just missing those 12 inches in depth, which is obvious that there's no way without moving the house that you could make that work otherwise. I think making the provision for the possibility for a third car parking while still have a future sidewalk is a good decision because that is... keeps the future open and to implement that because this is going to be there long term. So having said that, I think the way the parking is resolved in the current plan that we're looking at is very good. And I think the maximum you can do on that lot. um and that serves that third bedroom the third bedroom itself doesn't have a problem as far as i concerned except that it needs the variance because the lot is too small um so i'd be in support of this project any other um i have some go ahead

I was just going to piggyback off of the parking comments. Um. I agree with commissioner Jansen on the 1st, 2 spaces. I think it's a vast improvement over what's existing. I just have a little bit of hesitation with the 3rd space. Um. I think as commissioner Jansen mentions, it's really important to maintain that 4 foot. right of way for a future sidewalk should funds be available to actually create a contiguous pedestrian network in this in this neighborhood we have good friends who live just down the street from here and we've walked it a few times and it is harrowing to do so particularly at night i just have concerns that because the parallel third parking space abuts a sheer wall it's going to be very difficult in terms of maneuverability to get that car close enough to the wall to maintain that four-foot right-of-way, especially because the length of it is also shorter than a standard parallel on-street parking space. So I think while it is sort of built on very good intentions, I think it'll actually detract from the future walkability along this frontage. I think... my concern with it is that we're basically in this action rubber stamping what is an illegal activity folks shouldn't be parking on the sidewalk right i know that this is a neighborhood where everybody does it and it's just part of life in a parking constrained area but i just have concerns about sort of allowing this to to proceed in a way that the town is basically condoning that that action So just to conclude, I think I'm also in support of this project. I just think if we're granting a parking variance, I would be more in support of a variance for two instead of three spaces, as opposed to trying to force this third space into a space that, you know, it's just not going to be really that feasible.

Any other comments? Commissioner Newton? Yeah, I have a follow-up question for staff. You know, I've had a history with the parking enforcement in Fairfax. And, you know, over the years, some of the officers have been very by the book. And I wonder if I was parked on that sidewalk and it wasn't a driveway, would that allow a very by-the-book officer of our police force to issue me a parking ticket parked on that sidewalk? I'm, no, serious.

Not speak for the police department. I can't speak. I see people parked on the sidewalk everywhere in this town. So I don't, I have never seen them enforcing it.

Right.

And, you know, San Anselmo used to like anyway, we this I've been here 40 years. They've never taken undertaken trying to get people off the sidewalks because it keeps them off of the road, you know.

OK, so here's another sort of wrinkle to that. You know how we are primarily driven by citizen complaints, right? So we have like a three-day parking limit on, you know, on the street parking in Fairfax. And in my neighborhood, it's only enforced usually if somebody calls and complains about a car that's been there for more than three days. And then they come by and they give you the warning and all that. And, you know, they believe that the authority to issue that, notice begins at the 72-hour mark, but they don't do it unless they get a complaint. But if they get a complaint, you're going to get it. So, you know, it's not like Fairfax has too much drama or anything, but occasionally neighbors don't get along. And like one neighbor will call on a car that's been there for three days and one hour. You know what I mean? And just let another car sit there for a year. You know what I'm saying? So what I'm trying to figure out, and maybe Commissioner Petroni can help me understand this, is if we allow that spot to be a driveway... It's a lot better from my perspective than having people park on the sidewalk. Looking to the future, you can transform a driveway back into a parking, I mean, a sidewalk if you want to in the future, if that becomes what we do. But I think it'd be much more difficult to navigate around a car parked on the sidewalk than it would be a car even not perfectly in the spot off the sidewalk. And the other thing I have is a concern that while you don't necessarily want to rubber stamp a practice like parking on the sidewalk, creating a driveway now makes that something other than parking on the sidewalk and gives a little bit of validity to the fact that that third spot is being used. And I'm not saying anybody's going to be calling up and reporting, oh, this car's on the sidewalk and those 14 others are as well, but we just want you to go out and give this person a hard time. So those are my, you know, out loud thoughts. I don't know what your response is.

Could I just say one thing too? Just remember that you're, it's, it's all conjoined with this bedroom addition. So you don't want to start approving bedroom additions without required parking. If it's feasible to do something to improve the parking, because someone down the street is going to use that to say, how come they got to do it? And I, I have to, you know, put in a third space or I don't get a third, you know what I'm saying? They'll use it. It'll set a precedence.

Yeah, that's a good point. I hadn't fully thought about, you know, as other folks apply for variances, you know, there's that clause about just treatment. Yeah, I guess I still just kind of So, for example, right now, if you were to look at Google Street View, there is a car that is parked along the frontage just past the carport, and it looks like it has like a maybe two-foot clearance for pedestrians, if that may be one foot. I remain concerned that pushing back that wall three feet, given how short it is, will provide limited improvement to the actual parking situation.

So if I could respond, I was out there today. I took a picture. I'm not going to show it to anybody because it's not evidence in the hearing or anything. But let me look at it and just tell you how much space there was for somebody to walk past the car that was out there today. Zero. Zero. It's like the wheel is right on the curb. So let me...

If I could just quickly... My point wasn't to say that the existing situation is acceptable. It's very much not. So yeah, point taken. I understand that it is a movement in the right direction, for sure.

Okay, so it's an area... I live in the Cascades, so I go by that... all the time. The existing parking garage has never been used since I've been here for parking because it's too small and dilapidated. We're improving on that with a carport that will provide parking for two cars. What we're looking at doing for that guest parking spot The third parking space is we're looking to put in another driveway to have a car come in. And I'm not sure how a car is going to maneuver back and forth in that driveway to be parallel with a house and the road. It's not going, you know, we're not pushing a third parking space. So it's. perpendicular to the road. My concern is for that, and I think in this case, I think we have the ability to provide a variance on that third parking space to not require it and then just have uh... the sidewalk four feet and if the applicant wanted on his own since he was going to have to put in the four foot sidewalk uh... to extend it to the house that would be his prerogative but i'm concerned about in that area on a turn on a narrow road that we would be looking to putting in a second driveway for somebody to come in and maneuver back and forth to park their car parallel to the roadway. I think that's more of a potential concern than it is to give variants to allow to not require that third guest space in this particular application. And as we know, and I think staff has said this previously, that we're not living in kind of suburbia where everything is nice and neat little squares of houses. I mean, Fairfax is unique and it's difficult at times with the parcels. And we tend to look at each application with those constraints and may decide on things differently depending on the particular circumstance of the house. So I would be in favor of allowing, of going with not requiring that third guest space in this particular application for the consideration of the sidewalk, the extra driveway, the safety of seeing somebody go back and forth to try and get that parking, that car parked in that, third space, and knowing that the houses to the left have been parking on the sidewalk. On the right, it's different. And I understand that parking enforcement, and it's not only in Cascades, you can go out on Porteus. in Deer Park on narrow roads and run into the same thing that it's a concern. But in this particular application, I would be for not requiring that third space for the applicant.

I'd like to add something to this detail that is the reason why I thought it's a good idea to put it in. Requesting the third spot is good for precedence and it's not perfect and it's difficult. I would know perfectly how to put a car in there. Some people might not. But I think the variance is revocable. So if in the future there is really going to be a sidewalk and it's not operational, then you can remove it. So the moving that retaining wall back slightly improves what's the current situation. That depends on how the driver is going to operate his car. If the town is going to put in a real sidewalk at some point and it's not working the way it should, then you revoke it. So we're not creating a problem by doing this and it becomes on the user to use it appropriately and allow for four feet clear. And if we were not to approve it, we would permanently lock it out because then you can never. So that's how I came to the conclusion. No, it's not perfect, but it's better than not doing it. And we're not locking ourselves into a problem in the future. On the contrary, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. And I understand all the concerns relating to it. Yeah, that's not an easy one to slip your car in. But yeah, it depends on the car you have, of course, as well.

Question of the commission. Do you think if there was an additional four feet of length on this parking space, would it like if we asked the applicant tonight if he could move the recycling back? to the second wall that would add an additional four feet, seven inches to the length of the, of the parallel space. Would that make everyone feel better if he could be willing to do that to just see what I'm saying?

Yeah. So that, that does get it to sort of more in line with the standard length for on street parking spaces. So I think that would, that would certainly help me sort of become more comfortable with it.

Would you be willing to open the public hearing so he could address whether he's willing to do that?

Well, let me, let me ask staff, when you say move the recycling, where would you move it?

He would just, he would push the wall. He would just have the second wall. See the second wall. He would have a square that goes all the way back to the second wall. That's closer to the front entry stairs. That would get him enough space to put his recycling and everything back there. And you would have four more feet for the parallel space.

So you're, thinking about taking that recycling square and pushing it back to the rock walls.

Towards the house, yes.

Before we reopen the hearings, and you've got your mic still on, though, if I could ask Commissioner, Chair Swift, I like the idea of moving the recycling back, but even the way it was, I feel like navigating cars that are parking on the sidewalk would be more of a problem. I don't understand why getting the car into a parking space would be a problem, but putting it on a sidewalk would not be.

Well, it's still going to be out into that area. I mean, the cars are going to be out of the space as far as I see. So they're going to, one part of the car is going to be beyond the walls, the front walls of the house.

In the right of way.

So been obviously a difficult choice on which way to go with this parking variance. And Robert's last comment just flipped me back again because I'm thinking one of the reasons we don't want to create a precedent where people don't have to add parking spaces is the idea that you can Build your house and do renovations in such a way that, you know, there's going to be more cars there. You don't have to plan for it. And then relying on the people who would be parking in that space to park somewhere else in the neighborhood on the street, taking up space. you know, not bearing the burden of cars in the neighborhood that the rest of the lots have to do. In this circumstance, I mean, just because it comes right off of that really narrow, you know, if you're trying to walk or bike from parking near Dark Egger Park all the way out to the Cascades, it's right off the very narrow, big looming hill. I don't think Here, either way, it's not like there's an obvious public spot across the street that the owner is just going to use instead of building out a parking spot for themselves. But I... And so... you know, that was leaning me towards not requiring the space. But I think ultimately, we're going, there's going to be a precedent set either way. And I think it's better to set a precedent of there's an obligation to do what you can to, to provide for parking given the size of your unit. And I think just one way to somewhat mitigate all of our concerns is to just try and strengthen the variance findings a little bit to make it more particular to this exact circumstance. You know, we, as we're all saying about how narrow the roadway is, how there isn't actually a sidewalk towards town that you're connecting it to right now. And maybe there would be in the future and you sort of, you know, just because there isn't one now, I don't want to be in a situation in the future where you could have it, except none of the, um, advanced work has been done to sort of prep for it. And then it's becomes a much bigger hassle that you're asking the property owner to use. So I, I, where I'm getting out, I think is, I think moving the recycling helps the situation either way, but, um, But even without it, I would grant the variance for the small parking and third space where it is and just have maybe we can think about another paragraph or so or a couple of edits to the variance findings to make sure that we're not trying to let people take over sidewalks for parking in the future.

So are you going, is your sense to require the third or to provide a variance to not require the third?

So I would like to require the third and I prefer to ask the owner if they can move the recycling wall back a little bit. And for me, the added length is just in practice. When you're parking the car, you have more space to make sure that you're getting as close to the wall as possible. But if the owner says they can't do it and we're in time, the tie-breaking vote, I'd still be going for requiring the third spot.

so let me ask the commission is the commission um would the commission like to bring the applicant back to ask if he is willing to do that okay if the applicant's still there can you come back on

Yes, I was saying yes, as if you can hear me, let the applicant back on. I think the solution might be as simple as I just remove the dedicated nook for recycling, and that wall simply goes all the way to the stairway. And then we can use it, still put recycling there if we want, or in the garage, or further out in the street. But that would give you over four feet. And what I don't like about moving the retaining wall back is that I'm now getting into territory where it has to be 48 inches or higher, which I'm trying to avoid. So I'm saying just remove it completely and extend that wall another four foot seven inches.

Okay. Does the commission, it seems that we have a consensus here?

Yeah, I think I agree with that. I just have one additional question for the applicant, if he's still on. It looks like there's a shared two-mailbox sort of pedestal that's in the pedestrian right-of-way right at your property line with the property to the Thank you. Yeah, I think that's correct. Is that planned to remain or does your project include moving your mailbox elsewhere?

I hadn't planned on moving it, but that would be a very easy thing to do. Although it affects my neighbor, too. They would have to move their side as well.

The only reason I raise it is because if we're, you know, you know, not us, you are on the sidewalk trying to maneuver into that space. It might prove to be an obstacle. It's right here.

I know what you're saying. It hasn't thus far just, you know, because it's been this way for God knows how long. Right. And without that retaining, I mean, without that recycle area, you know, wall returning it, it, it, essentially brings it back to the way it is currently. Got it. Okay.

Thank you.

So do we have, well, if I might, just as a point of order, we should probably see if there's anyone else that wants to make a public comment now that we've opened it up again and then close it.

And actually, I had the question, are you done with the applicant?

We are for now. So unless there is someone on Zoom who wishes to make a public comment on our discussion or in the audience. I see no hands on Zoom. So I'm going to close public comment and bring it back to the commission for a potential motion.

I think we're ready for a motion.

No, I have a couple other comments, and I have a question for Chair Swift as well. When you say the homes on the right side, are you talking as you're standing in front looking at the street or as you're standing in the street looking at the house? Which right are you talking about? The second. The second. Okay, so the houses on the right are the ones where people park their... No, houses on the left are the ones where people are using the sidewalk.

Yes, and on the right, and you can see that in Google Maps, the ones on the right have a sidewalk that goes up to the house. The ones on the left have more of a... gravel space there where they're parking, and it's more you see the parking on the left on a continual basis for that rental house.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then if I might, I have a couple questions for staff about the revisions and the red line. Well, and also... the part that's not changed. On the first page, under the whereas the commission has made the following findings, you have references to LU2 and LU4.1. Okay. Do you want to? You want my copy? Okay, under the last whereas clause, the commission has made the following findings. You have that three-paragraph recitation regarding the goal and policy. Then that same language is repeated at the top of the next page under A with respect to the finding under A. And I'm wondering if that was on purpose. I think it's duplicative, and you might want to delete the three paragraphs under A at the top of page two.

Yes, thank you.

All right. I would then also recommend that the commission add a sentence.

Since I don't have my copy in front of me, can you repeat that again so I can write it down? Do you want your copy?

I don't know what I did. I made a whole bunch of copies of that thing. What did I do with it? the top of page two got it in there all right thank you oh i found him all right i just found my copy of you want yours back

You know, we have the usual language about if you deviate from the plans that were submitted on April 7th or something, and you've highlighted that with yellow.

I'll tell you why I did that. A commissioner had a question ahead of time and said that we only cited the date the application was submitted, and I highlighted it so that I remembered to tell the commission that we do cite the date on the plans under that whereas. So we do have the date on the plans. The date the plans were received is in that section. And the date the application was filed is at the beginning of the resolution. Does that make sense?

Okay, no. The town of Fairfax in the first paragraph in the resolution on page one says the town received an application on March 23rd. And then the yellow paragraph on page three says received by the town on April 7th. Those are inconsistent.

Okay. So the highlighted... What we were trying to say, the application was filed, right? We say in the beginning when the application was filed, right? This is the plans, the plans, the final plans that were accepted by staff were received on April 7th. That's what we're trying to say. So this is, when you get to that section, you're citing the final set of plans that were accepted for processing are dated, received by the town on April 7th.

And those are the plans that we're using. to review the application.

And it's very rare to have plans submitted on the application filing date that stay accepted.

Can we say received an initial application on March 23rd in the first paragraph? Because it's obviously been amended, and now we're saying you've got to stick with the April 7th version of the plans, right?

Can I ask that? I don't know how to... We received the application form and that doesn't change. And that came in with the payment on March 23rd. Then we spend a lot of time going back and forth with applicants and we stamp the new plans received because a lot of times the architects change one page and they change the date on the one page, but they don't change the date on all the pages.

Okay.

So you guys decided to start accepting quite a while ago that in the reso we would cite the final plan submit, plan set submittal.

the application form is always the day they paid their fee okay that's what we're trying to all right i would like to add an exception to that paragraph one the project approval is limited to the project depicted and described in the plans prepared by the owner john bartolome received by the town on april 7 2026 except for the removal of the recycling bin storage area. And then I also want to make that same change or reference that.

Could we say with removal of the recycling bin storage area and extension of the reconstructed front wall?

An extension of the third parking spot. Good. And I want to add that as well to the paragraph see on the previous page. The proposed parking plan to bring the property more into compliance with the required three parking spaces by allowing the expansion of a one-car to two-car carport and providing a second driveway approach of, which is now going to be 24 feet. Okay, got it. To accommodate an eight-foot by 24-foot.

Eight-six.

I'm sorry.

Eight-six. Eight-six.

I don't, I don't understand. Robert, could you say that?

Eight foot six inches on the plan.

To accommodate an eight foot six inch by 24 foot parking stall. Okay. And then You've also indicated a change on page 7, paragraph 26, but you've renumbered everything after paragraph 26. I don't think you want to remove the number 26. I think you want to leave that number there, and all the others should stay the same as well. Correct.

That was because it was pointed out to me that the I thought it was our standard tree condition, but I didn't realize that just referencing another application, but I wanted to keep the standard tree removal permit requirement in there.

Those are my comments. I think in terms of the, sorry, Cindy, Chair Swift, the front porch, could we call it the cover over the top landing of the front stairs?

Yes, I like that. I mean, is that okay?

Yeah, and I'm not even sure Let me ask this question. Is that even a requirement? I mean, all he is doing, the stairs are staying the same, the landing's staying the same. The only thing he is doing is adding a cover over that. Is that even something we need to address?

The way the code reads is you need a conditional use permit for any modification, change, new construction on a site that doesn't meet the requirements.

I'd like to make a motion.

Before you do, can I give some notes? So just for the driveway variance and the language on formalizing it, for that clause C, I would rather... On page three. On page three. have the language match more exactly the code language. And I would not want to say formalizing the parking. I would like to say granting this variance will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, materially adversely affect the health and safety of people residing or working in the neighborhood of the site. And yeah, I don't.

Okay. So you're on page three, paragraph C. I was on page two, paragraph C. Okay.

Yeah. So I'll read it out because I've seen not everyone. We don't all have the code in front of us. The language in C says just itself, the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect the adversity, health, or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant. and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. And I just want to limit this in not saying that we're formalizing this parking. I agree with not formalizing this.

how we park in that area but can you give me the site on that because you're what you're wanting to do is just repeat the code site yeah so so it's it's right here 12 12 0 9 0 and then c they they're corresponding and your proposal is to put all that you just said in that paragraph c

So to remove the part where it says formalizing so it would just say the parking. The granting of the driveway variance will not under and you know, instead of saying the particular case a in the circumstances of this application.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if we could shorten it a little and still make it sound like the requirement.

It seems very long, doesn't it?

I'm good with it. You're okay with it, aren't you?

I'm just laughing because I have to tell you that I have had different planning directors that have said you can't just put the language from the code in. You have to personalize it to the specific project. Then I've had other planning directors that have said just put in the language from the code. So I never know what I'm supposed to do.

Well, the only planning director you need to worry about right now is Jeff.

So with that, I would go with the latter, but so with that change, do we have any more changes or do we have a motion?

Okay, I will move to approve resolution number 2026 dash 10. And I'm going to try and read the headline as corrected. A resolution of the Fairfax Planning Commission approving application number 2606 for a front setback variance, minimum side yard setback variance, combined side yard setback variance, driveway variance for a second driveway, and variance for three compact parking stalls. And a conditional use permit to construct a 3rd bedroom, a front porch, construct a 2 car carport. With the language, uh. With the language cover over the porch cover third bedroom, a cover over the top landing of the stairs of the front stairs. Constructed 2 car carport and reconfigure the property frontage to rebuild the front access stairway and the front retaining wall at 200 cascade drive with the additional changes noted and agreed upon by the commission and staff. 2nd.

Jansen?

Aye.

Petrone?

Yes.

Beffer?

Yes.

Newton? Yes. Chair Swift? Yes. Motion passes.

So with that, there is a 10-day appeal process, and anyone wanting more information on the appeal process can contact the Planning Department. Thank you.

Chair, I have a question, if I may. Did we, before we started item number one, did we do public comments on non-agenda items? I missed that. We did. We did. Okay, thank you.

So we are... not addressing the minutes we're continuing those so we're going to go on to the planning director's report okay i can just mention a couple things uh one is a preview of coming attractions since we

Tomorrow we have a special meeting of the council, the town council, to extend the moratorium on formula businesses. So they'll give us exactly 10 years, 10 years, 10 months, 10 years would be nice. 10 months and 15 days to, um, update the code before the more term expires. And then actually we could do it another year after that point. But we think we could kind of wrap this up within the next 6 months. So we'll be coming back to the planning commission, uh, potentially as early as next month for kind of an initial kind of study session on some concepts that we're thinking about just to see how the commission feels about those. Then maybe come back the following meeting with a little bit more technical code. Writing. That's kind of the operating plan anyway. And then the other thing to bring up is we are moving forward with the bicycle and pedestrian master plan. And so we have a meeting with the BPAC on Monday. And so anyway, so just to let you know, that's moving forward.

Could you, if I may, could you give me an update on the ADU ordinance update?

Oh, it was introduced at the town council last night. And so it's going to have a second reading in May. And so that should be effective in about 30 days after that.

And was the version that was introduced, did it incorporate the, I'm sorry, I didn't do my homework, but did it incorporate the planning commission's recommendations? Does it deviate from what we had recommended?

Well, an interesting wrinkle is we did include the planning commission recommendations, but they were actually the staff recommendations because the planning commission did not have a recommendation yet. So anyway, I know that I just said three things, opposite things at the same time there. But basically, technically, it's the staff recommendation.

And it's scary that I understood that. Yeah. So the recommendations that the planning commission wanted to make, were those accepted? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yep.

If I could, through the chair, just going back to the BPAC, do we have any sense of when they'll come, they or the consultant will come in front of us for an update on progress?

Yeah, we will come. I think the idea is to have the BPAC weigh in on the draft master plan, which is coming within the next couple months. And then once we have the BPAC reviewing that, then we would come to the planning commission. And it would either be staff would bring it to you or we would ask if one of the BPAC members wanted to come to the planning commission. And so it's moving relative, it's on schedule. So it's probably looking at like maybe June or July, we would have a draft plan. Oh, another thing with that is that just while you got me thinking about it, is they are planning on having an outreach event at the farmer's market to kind of gather input from the public on just where they see concerns are out in the community, kind of a low-key public involvement event.

Is there any kind of draft or notes about where they're going with this that would be on the web that people could look at? Or minutes from the meeting, something to give people an idea of?

There is a BPAC webpage, and I can send that out so you can check it out. That will have some of those materials on it, including there's a link to an online survey that folks can take. One of the things we're going to be doing on Monday is – Brian McKillop, who's our associate planner, is putting together some kind of initial results from the online survey that we did.

Is the survey still open?

No, we closed it, the first survey.

Okay.

We will have a second survey, however.

Okay, so right now online there's no open survey?

No.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions for the planning director related to his report? Okay, now we're going to go on to Commissioner comments and requests. Does anyone have any?

Um, I have a, I guess a question for staff. Have you, have you given any more. Thought I'm sure you have, but maybe not, um, not, uh. With the intention of discussing a new plan, have you given any more thought to what we had talked about at the last meeting about how. Most of our resolutions where we are just repeating other agencies. Conditions are sort of superfluous because they get to change their conditions and up until the building permit. I don't know what, I don't know if there's any action that would have to be taken by us or the town council to change sort of our process for the resolutions. Um, uh, so I was just, you know, we, we mentioned it a little last week and just, I didn't know if that's a thing. I'm sure it's anything that's, you know, per project taking away 15 minutes of, uh, sending out emails. And then the next time you're, you're doing follow-up, but,

There is some value in having all of the conditions kind of in one place for the applicant, just as kind of for their organizational purposes. And plus, you know, just being able to go through a checklist type process. So.

I guess then if we are keeping them as is, I was thinking more that we would want a note somewhere in there that's saying that the conditions by XXX agencies are subject to change by the agencies until the building permit so people don't say, oh, I got the copy of the resolution with all my conditions and then something's different in the building permit. I didn't realize that that could happen.

I thought we do have one in there that says agencies can change their requirements if they do it in writing to the town prior to issuance of the building permit. But did I take it out?

It's paragraph 18, page 6.

Yeah, so... Conditions placed upon the project by outside agencies or by the town engineer may be eliminated or amended with that agency or the town engineer's written notification to the planning department prior to issuance of the building permit.

Then, I mean, for the applicant to then do, I assume we send it, but it's just a note for the applicant, you know, which we will send to you because if you, I'm just thinking if I'm not a sophisticated person and I'm coming here and it's, oh, I got a headache and now I'm just putting a pergola up and I've got all these conditions and something changes with like sprinklers or something. And they tell you, and I'm not looking at the building permit.

Yeah, I almost don't know how to address this with you guys because this was created right before I started here. It gets stapled to the building permit plans. Some applicants read it. Some applicants don't. Some building inspectors read it. Some building inspectors don't. i think it you know it doesn't hurt to have it if someone tries to argue with you that they didn't know and you say hey you got it in the letter of action that we sent to you and it was stapled to your building permit you know what i mean you can't read it to them but it's there to try to cover all faces right yeah i guess yeah um believe me i don't like dealing with them either and then anyway no that's that makes sense why it was done in the first place And you have such a turnover in staff at town hall. And like, you can have a, the fire department, you work with someone and all of a sudden they're gone and you know, you, you don't, so it's a different fire chief and it's, it's, I think it's useful, but I, this may be a silly question.

Do applicants sign an acknowledgement that they got their building permit?

They have to pay for it or they don't get it.

I mean, I don't know if we get like a receipt. I got the building permit and I read it.

Are you asking if they got the building permit and read it or if they got the reso?

If they ever say something saying that they got the building permit, like acknowledging of what we're giving them.

I know they signed something. that, well, I don't know if it says it.

We can, I can, I'll, I can.

I think we should have a ceremony where we actually read it out loud to them.

Well, I'll bring the drums. You know, this is, I know.

I understand.

It's from the, also the meaning, like once we have this, the sprinklers, which people would rather sell their property than pay to upgrade and the green building requirements and things like that. If, if we haven't, if we're copying and pasting old or, you know, Ross Valley fire, somebody sends us their old things and it's in here and the building permit says something else. I don't want somebody to say, Oh, I don't have to follow the new green building stuff because you gave me this and I never got the building permit, even though you've issued it.

You know, I don't even know how to address this because a lot of times the contractor will come and pick the building permit up. You know, you can't force people to look at this stuff. I staple it and then I stamp job set like this so that if someone takes it off, there's like a B, B, B. Yeah. Someone will say, what was there? What's gone now? Yeah.

I think, Commissioner, I understand it's a legal thing, but you cannot construct anything without that permit. So isn't it by default acknowledged? Because you're not allowed to move anything. So if you don't, you must have it before you can do it. It's more a question, but in a practical sense, it's like if you get a ticket from the police, by the very fact that you get it, you're supposed to read it.

Do you have to post it on the property when you get the building permit? So there you go.

I thought that was... No, it still has eliminated. You have to have it on site, but it doesn't have to be posted on the.

Yeah. But as long as you have to have it on site, that's, I guess for me, it's sort of like, because you could get, you could send me a, you could give me a phone call and say, Hey, we issued your building permit. Feel free to get going. I know you have only two weeks before Northern spotted owl season. And then I say, okay. And I never look at it, but if you have to have it on site for me, that's supposed to be on site.

Yeah.

So I had some follow-up from our last meeting. At the last meeting, we had a discussion about the forms or the application that applicants come in that they have to follow. And part of that was the idea of the commission and staff reviewing what is online to see if those items are pertinent, if they're required, that type of thing. And that's something I think both staff and members of the commission wanted to do, and my question is for the Commission, has anyone had a chance to look at the application since the last meeting? And if not, just saying that, you know, if we want to set a time to go over that or, you know, as soon as individuals have had a chance to look at the application, We can set up a workshop or a meeting to go over that and see if there's improvements.

Who are you suggesting participate in this meeting? The Commission and staff and the public?

I'm not sure at this point. I think what we had initially talked about last time was the fact that there were a discussion about following application processes and some of the plans didn't have elevations or this or that that were making it difficult at times to review. So there was a discussion about commissioners taking a look at the application. documents online, and then perhaps at a later time, we could go over those to see, to get feedback from commissioners, a lot of whom have background that would be conducive to providing input on if there are changes or that could be made to those application documents that could help staff and could help the commission in reviewing applications that come to us. So I just wanted to ask the commission if anyone had a chance, and we're all busy, to look at that. And it sounds like maybe not, so we'll just kind of continue and hopefully if we have a chance to do that, then we could set up a time to go over those documents and help

Yeah, and there's only one document, just so you know. We used to have separate applications for variances for use permits, and it was all consolidated into one. So it's just one application, the master planning application you have to look at.

Okay, so just continuing that thought, we have a chance to take a look at that and then work to providing some feedback to staff.

So maybe what we need to do... Do a review of that document and then share it to discuss it in our next meeting. We can do that and mark it up, submit it to Linda and distribute it. Can we do that?

The application form, yeah. That would be very helpful, but I will repeat again. I believe the application form indicates everything we need. Getting people to give you the plans is like pulling teeth.

Right. But so maybe I think we talked about it last time, too.

I think what might be more helpful is if you guys look at it and you think it's too it's too wordy and stuff, if you can find a way to maybe explain it in a shorter, briefer way that people that think they can do their own plans or designers can interpret and put onto paper. because they're not all architects and we can't apparently request architects.

Right, people are allowed to do that themselves.

Yes, if you can come up with ways to make the language something that you think your average person might be able to understand, that would be great. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Okay, I'll volunteer to take a look at it and then send something up.

I should add that Per state law, especially the state laws that have been adopted recently, if it's not on the application form, we can't ask for it, like, ever. So if there's anything that we'll need at any time during the application process, it has to be on the initial application form. So it's easier to have more. So the reason that these application forms ends up being so long and onerous is that it's easier just to waive things and not require it than to not have it on the application form because you'll never get a chance to ask for it.

Understood.

So with that, any other comments or questions, requests from the commission? Seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

I'll second. Meeting is adjourned at 8.22.