Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're going to call this meeting to order. Um I would like um roll call. Um Commissioner uh Deorgio present. Commissioner Mason present. Commissioner Radnich present. Vice Chair Deming present. And Chair Leange present. Um, I would uh if I could get a motion to adopt the agenda. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I

motion carries 5. Um to staff, do we have any public comments for tonight that are not on tonight's agenda? And if so, anyone in the room, if you have anything that's not on the agenda tonight, please hand the slip up to staff. So, if you would like to speak on an agenda item this evening, you will get the opportunity as the agenda item comes up, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to staff. If it is within the purview of the planning commission but not on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity. Um, so anyone in the room can so indicate and on Zoom we will check to see if anyone has raised their hand and we're not seeing any indication. So, no commenters. Okay, thank you. Um, so for the consent calendar tonight, we have a number of items that are being continued. Does anyone have anything they want to wish to to to advise, revise, or otherwise? Otherwise, if I can have a motion to adopt the consent calendar.

I move we adopt the consent calendar. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries 5-0.

Cheer. Uh just for the benefit of everyone in the room because there are several items on consent this evening and notices did go out. I do want to uh read out the addresses uh of those items which are continued to the next meeting two weeks hence. There is a project uh reservalis road and then three lots on Cambridge Drive which are all not going to be discussed this evening but will be discussed two weeks from tonight. So if you're here on any of the Cambridge lots or 820 Okalanas uh you can come back in two weeks and reach out to staff in the inter interim. Um I just wanted to note that. Thank you.

Thanks. All right, we did that. Uh, we have no continued public hearing. So, now we'll go to uh new public hearing and I will turn back over to staff for the first uh presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners, and good evening everyone. My name is Nicole Ziddle and I am the project planner for this variance [clears throat] and lot line revision application on 19 and 20 Spring Hill Lane. For some site context, um located on the screen is a map of the two parcels of the project site. Um this project site is located in the northeastern portion of Lafayette at the end of a culde-sac which extends down a short valley. Both the 19 and 20 Spring Hill are under common ownership. So the first um scope um staff is asking the planning commission to consider is the lot line adjustment between 19 and 20 Spring Hill Lane. Um shown on the slide on the left hand image is the two parcels. What is circled in orange is kind of roughly the area of the lot line to be adjusted. What is shown on the right highlighted in yellow is the existing lot line between 19 and 20. And what is highlighted in green is what is proposed. So that yellow lot line would be moved. We're kind of looking at south west um to create more acreage in 19 Spring Hill Lane. This lot adjustment complies with the goals and intent of the lowdensity single family residential zoning designation and the rural residential general plan designation. The existing single family residential land use will persist on both lots and the lot line revision will remedy the existing nonconformity which is the substandard lot size of 19 Spring Hill Lane. Currently configured it is 2.96 acres and after the lot line adjustment would meet the 5 acre minimum. The parcels would also comply with the development standards of the respective zoning districts.

Staff is also asking the planning commission to um [clears throat] review a variance request. Um this is for a 120 ft garden or potting shed that is located 25 ft from the property line where 50 ft is required. The site does have steep hillsides and existing mature vegetation which we can kind of see on the two images of the potting shed shown on screen. However, the flatter area of the valley floor does provide adequate space for reasonable development of residential uses and its structures. Staff has not identified special circumstances of the subject property that would deprive it the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district. Staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt planning commission resolution 202511 denying the variance and approving the lot line adjustment subject to standard conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Um, any clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Mason?

Um, thank you. I thought 120 foot sheds weren't uh were not required to get a permit. Is this going to go through the permit process or is my understanding incorrect? Your understanding is correct. So in the LR5 zoning district, all buildings and accessory, including accessory buildings must have the 50ft set back from property lines. So it's not an it's not by it's not an exempt U structure because of its size. Does that include trelluses and things like that? I believe so. Yes. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Not yet. Vice Chair,

just to clarify to make sure I was understanding the materials correctly, the property line with which it would be within the setback of just for my own edification for the um the shed. I was led to from the materials that the essentially the any impacted party, the nearest neighbor was in favor of it. Yes, staff did receive a letter of support from the neighbors north of 19 Spring Hill Lane. So, the neighbors that would be directly adjacent to kind of where the potting shed, garden shed is located.

Okay. And then I just um so I guess I'm just trying to get make [clears throat] sure I fully understand it. What is I mean besides obviously like the the you know letter of the law um I started going for I guess the intent behind it. Is there a worried impact that I'm not seeing for if the shed is allowed to the variance is granted?

Your question relates to is there an impact on the neighbors?

Essentially, what would be the potential impacts of permitting it for the shed to be constructed outside of the fact that it would not be permitted by the letter of the law? simply I don't know that there would be impacts in the traditional sense of privacy or views but the the zoning and I will point out and I think we acknowledge in the staff report that um the all of the homes on the street with the exception of 19 and 20. So 19 is adjacent to the end of the culde-sac which has recently been enlarged and um to allow better emergency vehicle circulation. Um the 19 and 20 are in a different zoning district than the rest of the lot. And so the rest of the lots on the on the street enjoy smaller setback requirements. Um and so it is I think simply a matter of complying with that uh envisioned 50-foot setback as as laid out in the low density residential five district or 10 district which both require 50-ft setbacks as um they tend to be more uh rural in their um setting in their character. um you the general plan designation actually uses the word rural residential. So um in terms of actual real world impacts in terms of privacy and views I don't know that there would be a material difference um and and it would be uh the most impacted that the the variance is on the side of the property owner that has indicated support for the variance. um if I'm recalling that correctly. So, uh Nicole,

if you can actually go to the exhibit that shows the shed and the Yeah. So, I hope that attempts to answer your question.

Good chair. Go ahead. Is this an appropriate time to ask questions about the public comments that were received or should we do that after um presentation? Any other further? I think I think it's I think we should ask questions that are asking staff to clarify any questions we have about their staff report. Um I I think that would wait. Okay. Yeah. Um any other clarifying? Uh I I'm sure it was in the report, but I can't remember. When was that shed built? Do we know that

construction on the shed was completed in 2025, early 2025? So when they built it, did they know they were not abiding by the the setback? I mean, I'm assuming they did, but I just I want to be clear here. So I know the applicant will present and I think that's a great question to direct to them. All right. Any other questions? All right. Um, uh, thank you staff. With that, uh, the applicant, if you would please come up, just introduce yourself, and you have five, three minutes up to 10 minutes to present. Sorry,

Mr. K. There you go. No, actually if you can press the button at the base on the on the lecture. Yeah, how's that? Much better. Great. Thank you. Uh my name is Mark Becker. I'm the project designer.

Ironically, I've been on this project off and on for 17 years. Um there was a phase one and this is phase two. Um, we're looking for uh a lot line adjustment to bring the lot into conformance to be the 5 acre minimum and we meet all the setback requirements and so on and so forth and we've had our engineers scouted out. I think that one's pretty straightforward. Uh, I'm happy to answer any questions on on that, but I think that one's pretty straightforward. I think the bigger issue is the garden shed. Um, I think if you look at the drawing, I think what's really important here is our next door neighbor actually has written three letters of support for two different shed locations and ultimately to support this variance. The very first shed location, which was permitted uh and approved by town, is in the crosshatch closer to the street and closer to our neighbor. Um, we then decided to push it further away both from our neighbor and further back from the street. And we were putting it where the garage that we demolished was. So, the garage was 30 ft from the property line. This one's 25 to 26 ft from the property line. Is basically in the same location. There are other other photos in your packet that show the garage that was there. Um, so we worked on the premise that we were okay because we were told to get the neighbor to write a letter and we would get support for this. Halfway through, uh, some issues arose with another neighbor across the street and so it was frozen and we were unable to pull a plumbing permit for our sink. Uh, you're correct, whoever asked the question. We are not required to get a building permit because it's 120 square feet or

less, but we are required to get a plumbing permit if you have any plumbing or electrical. And so that was why we wanted to get a permit. Our neighbor next door would really like it to stay where it is. Our neighbor across the street, same thing. Nobody wants to deal with any more construction. If we were to move it, we would literally move it 25 ft along that fence line further from our neighbor who already supports it. But more importantly, uh it would mean more construction across the street from neighbors who have already endured quite a bit of construction and we're trying to wrap it up. Uh so that's kind of where it is. It it meets all the normal criteria of a shed. We feel like it's in the spirit of the uh rural character that's asked for in the LR5 zoning. It's plenty of open space if you've been out to the site. And we we feel like it's a little weird that our one lot has an LR5 zone when all the other neighbors are zoned a different zoning. Every other neighbor has a 10-ft sideyard setback. We somehow have a 50- foot sideyard setback. The home that we tore down did not have a 50- foot setback. It was 30 feet on one side and 38 feet on the other side. And so we just didn't want to go through the headache of a reszone for that. It just didn't seem like it was worth it. And this has all come up after the fact, of course, um because we thought we were totally fine when we built it. So, I'm happy to answer any questions, but that's basically how we got where we're at.

Great. Thank you. Just hold on a sec. Let me see if we have questions. Uh, any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Radnich. Uh, thank you. Sure. So, uh, hopefully you can explain if this is LR5 zoning. And you've been on the project 17 something years. Yeah. How is this lot not five acres?

Well, there's two lots. Um, so the project I was on was 19, which is further back. We just recently purchased this a few years ago. So the the lot in the back is actually zoned LR10, 10acre minimum, and this was um this was zoned differently. Ironically, kind of innocently, honestly, the uh we just kind of worked on the assumption that wherever we tore the old house down was where we could build new structure. And that's kind of where we aired. and um it's just been a little bit of a problem ever since.

So um so did I hear you correctly when you were saying that constructing the shed you didn't think it would be an issue until you tried to receive the plumbing permit? That's correct. Okay. Thanks. Sure. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Um and uh okay so now we will open up to uh public comments. Uh so if you have any public comment if you want to speak please hand a card up. Chair we have two speakers in the room and then we can go to any on zoom. The first is Debbie Lindis. is still Is it on? Can you hear me? Could you speak up a little? Yes. Let me just There we go. Can you hear me now? Okay. Thank you. Great.

Good evening. My name is Debbie Lindis and I live next door to the project at 19 and 20 Spring Hill Lane. You're being asked to approve a seemingly innocuous lot line adjustment as though it were a standalone technical request. That is a total misrepresentation. The entire purpose of this lot line adjustment is to retroactively bypass variance requirements. The project architect openly admitted to violating variance rules in documents he sent to the city in October 2024. As you know from the materials submitted by our attorney that are in your packet with resolution 202219, the design review commission authorized a structure on the footprint of the previous home 60 ft from the property line. In 2023, city staff allowed the structure to be constructed 27 feet closer to the property line, far within the 50-foot setback. No variance was sought or granted, no public notice, no hearings, no findings. In April 2024, we submitted a formal complaint to this commission about the illegal structure and numerous other illegal aspects of this project. We got zero response from the city, zero action to investigate, zero enforcement of city ordinances. Instead, the property owners and their architect colluded with city staff to adjust the lot line to evade zoning laws they had violated. My family has endured over two and a half years of industrialcale construction surrounding our home.

A barn-like structure with a rusted tin roof looms over my driveway. Joy rides on the illegal hillside train track have begun. Construction inside the illegal tunnel continues. Instead of upholding city ordinances for the benefit of all residents, city staff have gone to great lengths to retroactively whitewash their illegal actions for the benefit of a wealthy property owner at the direct expense of my family and our neighbors who are forced to live next door to a private amusement park. Before making any decisions on this matter, I urge this commission to review all the records on this project. Come out and see this private amusement park for yourselves. Preserve the integrity of this commission and of the city's planning process by voting to reject proposed resolution 202511. Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for the speaker? So you

um you you characterized the tunnel and the train tracks as illegal. Why is that? The design review commission reviewed uh resolution 202219 which had a a structure 60 ft from the property line as I mentioned and one loop of train track around that structure. There were no tunnels. There was no railroad track far up the hillside. None of that was part of the project. And in fact, the conditions of that resolution specifically say many things, including all the grading needed to be on the level area where the house was being built. Um, that project was entirely on 19 Spring Hill Lane. The tunnel is on 20 Spring Hill Lane. I could go on and on. Um, but this none of that stuff was approved by anyone except over the counter by city staff, but there were no soil reports, nothing. So, yeah, that's why I'm saying it's illegal.

Any other questions, vice chair? Um, you said you reached out to city staff and got no responses. Do you happen to know if that was when you were reaching out and I guess a lack of response. Um, was that and I don't know if you're a party to it or not, but I know there's ongoing litigation. Um, was that prior to that or It was. Okay. And we didn't I would not characterize it as reaching out. We filed a formal complaint in April of 2024 which is in your packet. Anyone else? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, next speaker. The next speaker is Michael Hoffman. Thank you. In December 2022, the owners promised the city and the public they would build a single family home that was 60 feet away from our property. And as expressed conditions of approval by the city, the resolution requires a single family home and it requires it to be 60 ft away. Why? Because they can't demolish a single family home without replacing it with another one. And they couldn't violate the setback rule. It was just plain as day. It's all throughout the resolution and these are express conditions. Now, here a glaring omission from the staff report is the admitted fact that they built this structure illegally. They know it. They admit it. And when we complain to this commission, not reach out, phone call, written complaint to this commission, to the city attorney, to Mr. Wolf. I don't know if this commission got it. I I hope you didn't because if you did, you just sat on it and did nothing in the face of all of these violations. Absolutely nothing. Or he hid it from you. One of the two. So, they've spent the last year and a half trying to figure out a way to get around these violations, this fraud suit that's against him. And what have they done? They've come up with this lot line adjustment. And they got two problems. If you read the code section, which they don't bother to address in their report, the code actually anticipates these kind of games. And the first finding that this commission must make is after the approved lot line adjustment, each parcel complies with zoning and building ordinances. It doesn't. They built this structure within the setback. It's still

within the setback. It doesn't comply. It doesn't comply. Next, the commission must find must find that each parcel does not violate a condition of the development previously imposed by the city on any portion of the parcel. They have to build a single family home. It has to be 60 ft away. They didn't do that. You cannot approve it. It's right in your own code. The fact that they don't address this in their staff report is appalling. Is appalling. Neither the DRC nor this commission approved any of these changes. None of them. They just they just did it. And when we complained in April of 2024 before any litigation, what what did they do? They kept building even faster. So the idea that this was just so some golly g mistake after the fact is preposterous. It's absolutely preposterous. The owners can't manipulate the lot line law to cover up their prior violations. It's in your own code. This application must be denied. I'd be happy to ask any questions that any of you have.

Hold on a sec. Any questions? Vice chair. Just to clarify, is your understanding that if we do approve this lot line variance to bring it into conformity that it would somehow be a tacit approval or some way impact the other claimed deficiencies that you have?

The documents that were submitted with our opposition. It's in your packet. Contains a letter from Mr. Becker and he says openly, if we get this lot line adjustment, we'll change the name of the building to an ADU and then we'll be able to force it down everyone's throat. The only reason they're changing the lot line is to try to break the law. Three years ago when it was LR5, no one cared. They didn't care. Staff didn't care. The the express purpose in his own written documents is to try to evade the setback by reccharacterizing the building. Um I just a little confused because going through the uh excellent uh material that was prepared including by council that even if that were the case and it was reclassified as an ADU there are still elements that it would have to overcome for permitted you know to be an approved permitted allowable etc structure and so that's what I'm trying to clarify is like your your your view is that if we approve it it suddenly triggers an ADU and then everything you know they can get away with it and in your so to speak but in the material as well there's elements that even if it is declared that there's still problems is that your understanding as well though

well I agree with you that the question of whether this building is a single family home whether it's an ADU of some other ADU which was called an ADU in 2012 I guess when they built this barn I agree that's not on your agenda I agree with that there's been no notice there's been no application to do that. On the other hand, what's really going on here? I I mean, to to say that there's been an LR5 zoning for decades, possibly as a condition to subdivide these parcels, was maintaining an LR5 zoning. Staff didn't research that. Um, we don't know. But what we do know is that the the applicants believe this is some tow hold to um violate the setback rules, evade the variance statutes and a variety of other methods to get out from under this. And the people who are affected by it are us are us. This thing is now built up 10 feet off the ground. Um it's bumped up against the property line. It's not it's not built on the prior footprint as he suggested. You should come out and look at it, please.

I have a question. Um, thank you for your letters, both of your letters. Um, just [clears throat] to to comment, I I missed making a comment earlier um that personally I I I didn't join the the planning commission until November. So, of course, I never saw that and and until this afternoon, I I didn't until I actually I've been very busy

and I didn't look at the staff the staff report or the attachments until um this weekend and then this afternoon. I didn't really realize that there was litigation ongoing when I first read the report. And um so that aside, the way you're from your house now, I think I read in one of the letters it said that that the towers over your house, you know, it's got an angled roof. I did try go out there, by the way, and I couldn't see anything. You know, basically from the street, there's not a lot to be seen. But from your perspective at your house, are you saying that you can see their windows and that you can they can see into your yard or into your house? So, here's the way the house was before. It was up against the hill and we could look to this grassy oak tree hill across across from our home. You could see it from all four windows. Now, what you have is the structure is closer inside the setback. It's elevated where the elevation wasn't built before. They planted a row of redwood trees even closer inside that to further obstruct the view. And then so I can't see the hill from from my home the way I could before. And then when you look to the side, there's this garish 15 ft arch and the amusement park ride that's 25 ft up the hill and the bridge that that was not there any or before. So that's what it looks like from my home now. And we have photos of what it looked like before.

Any other questions? Um you know we have um even our last meeting we had um an applicant and neighbors and there was some disagreement and in that case um it seemed like there was an ability for them to step out of the room afterwards and talk through it. I'm assuming you guys have tried to talk. That's a question maybe I should ask. Is that Have you guys tried to talk? Um I think it would be inappropriate to go through the history of that dialogue. Yes or no? And yes, of course.

Okay. Um I would I would just add as part of that that that dialogue is supposed to happen before the construction starts. That's why we have these hearings. That's why you get to see the plans. That's why they get to say, "Hey, everyone else on the street gets to do whatever we're doing or this doesn't have the impact that you thought." Not build it first and ask for forgiveness later, which is what happened here. Yeah. So, we do have a a cart before the horse kind of thing. But yes, there is a there is a dialogue.

Yeah. And and I I mean, I can't imagine the frustration, but it sounds frustrating. Um, uh, in a perfect world, if we could do anything we want except physically, you know, move things without big dozers doing it, what would you want to happen? Well, so right now I I worry that that ship has sailed. There's a judge who's going to decide whether to tear this building down. All right. That's what we're asking him to do. There's a judge that's going to decide, yeah, this this amusement park train tracks and this tunnel that needs to be torn out, and we're going to ask him to do that. Now, this commission, respectfully, for those who weren't there, I asked you to do this a year and a half ago, and it's crickets. Now, I don't know. I'm assuming that nobody showed the commission this complaint for with reasons they can explain at other times, but um at the time we asked the commission to revoke the permits and stop the construction and they just accelerated the construction from our perspective. So, um that's a hard question for what this commission should do to potentially unwind it. But if you have a structure that is built illegally in a setback, is it appropriate for this commission to just say, "Well, golly, gee, they already built it, so that would be a darn shame if they had to tear it down." Or do you enforce your laws faithfully and impartially for everyone?

Okay. So, and I appreciate that answer. Um, so what we have to do tonight is we have two items on the agenda for this one. uh the variance for the shed and and the lot line adjustment

and and we have findings for both of those. Um and so it's incumbent upon each person up here to go through those findings and in their own decision making decide whether they can accept them or not and then we vote on that. And so, and we've had other um you know, projects over the years where there's been other stuff going on, legal or something else and and it's always sad because you hope it doesn't get there. But we do have to stay focused to what we're charged to do tonight. And so, um and I I will ask when the appropriate time maybe staff could uh because I don't I've been here long enough. I don't remember that. Um, it doesn't mean that it didn't get in front of me, but I I do I don't remember seeing anything like that, but I I would love it if staff could give us some guidance on that because I think uh most of those issues get handled by the city and city attorney and the planning department. They don't necessarily come to us for decision- making because they have to go through the city and the city attorney, which is the way it's supposed to go.

Oh, yeah. You cannot be reached. I tried to communicate directly and I understand why you can't have everyone bothering you all the time. We can be reached every two weeks right here. [laughter] That's an interesting approach. I I would just Sorry to interrupt, but I I agree. You have to make your findings on the narrow issue before you. It says Lafayette Municipal Code 6-2408. There's four findings. You have to make all of them. You can't make two of them. And if you can't make two of them, your law says this must be denied. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Um, turn over. Do we have any other speakers? Uh, no additional speakers in the room. So, we'll go to Yeah. Uh, I think you'll have an opportunity for rebuttal after all the public speakers. So, if there's anyone in online that would like to speak, go ahead and hit the raise hand button. Seeing none, so now is uh the applicants opportunity to rebut for up to five minutes. All right, sir. Yeah, you have five minutes now if you'd like.

Well, I've been doing this for a very long time, 45 years. I have never been accused of any wrongdoing and I'm personally insulted today and I have done. Um, as soon as I heard there was an issue with the neighbor, I reached out and they procrastinated and wanted a bunch of other things before they would meet with me. I finally got a meeting and it lasted for about two minutes and all I heard was I just want process. So here we are. We are doing process. The structure we tore down was 3,000 square feet. 38 feet from one property line next to them, 30 ft from my other neighbor's property line. It was 3,000 ft with a 4,000 ft garage. The house that was approved was not 60 ft from their property line. It was 50 feet from the side property line. Factoring in the easement area of 20 feet, it was technically 30 feet from that. We moved closer to where the old house was. We thought we were within our right to do so. We were going roughly where the old house was. We didn't think it was any issue. We went from a 640 ft twostory house that was approved with a window looking at their house. We scaled it down to a mere 400 square foot small structure. everything. This is just a fraction of the permits I have for this project. Soils reports, permits, every aspect of this project with exception to the shed that we're trying to get a plumbing permit for has been permitted and final. We're very frustrated with this process. As far as the the lot line adjustment, it is absolutely to bring it into compliance. By bringing it into compliance, what we are able to do is correct a situation that was brought to

our attention. We thought we were okay with the building. We permitted as such, but clearly once it became light that we needed to be 50 ft. We're going, well, we can go for a variance or we can realign the property lines and make something make this all work. And that's exactly what we're doing. It's it's clear as day. It's in our report. We're calling it an ADU. What we want to do is realign the property line, make it an LR5, make it 5 acre minimum. Our existing one-bedroom house that we have on the property, we're making that the primary residence. It meets all the requirements of a pri primary residence. The 400 ft structure meets all the requirements for an ADU. It's still required to be 50 ft from the front property line. The only thing it does is it helps us with our side property line. So yes, we are going backwards in the sense to try to correct something that was brought to our attention and we're doing our very best to bring it to to fruition and that's why we're here today. And so the lot line adjustment we're proposing meets every single requirement, meets the minimum setback requirements, meets the minimum size requirements, and it helps cure a situation that we're in that we're trying to correct. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah. Thank you. Let's see if we have any any questions. Yeah. So, please help me understand this concept of an ADU. Um, so the new structure that was built Y that has I guess a little pool near there. Right. Right next to it. Right. Um, if you characterize that as if you characterize that as an ADU, that implies that there's another building on the property already. Mhm. Okay. Um, I think I heard from the other party that that if you tear down a house, you have to replace it with another house, but do you know if that's the case or should I address that to No, that is the case. So, on 20 Spring Hill, the lot in discussion, we tore a house down. Uhhuh.

And we proposed this new house. But that's on the other lot, right?

That's right next door to Hopkins property. No, that's on the lot in discussion that we're talking about right now that has the shed and it has the 400 foot structure. The 400 foot structure, believe it or not, is considered a single family home because it has a bedroom, a little kitchen, and a bathroom. And so, we didn't want to do that. We just wanted a pool house initially, but we were told it had to be a one-bedroom house. So, we designed it with a bedroom and a kitchen. So, we built it, we permitted it, we went through the whole process. And ironically, what's really interesting is we had story polls of this structure up for three months and we heard nothing from our neighbors. Not a peep. We didn't hear anything until this building was already built. Not a single word. And so, we just don't All we're trying to do right now is just do the right thing. And at this point, doing the right thing is to kind of correct this setback issue. And the best way to do it is to categorize it, recategorize it from a a one-bedroom house to an ADU. And by capturing the one bed, the other one-bedroom house we have on the property, that becomes the primary residence, and they're both architecturally compatible and it meets all the standards. So, what I'm asking for is a condition of approval for the lat line adjustment knowing that we need to make this an ADU. and everything meets all all the proper guidelines for an LR5.

Go ahead. Any other questions? Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate it.

All right. Um, now we're going to bring it back to commission and uh discuss Mason. Well, this is an odd one. I mean, given the fact that we're normally arguing about 8,000 square foot homes looking down over the neighbors and stuff like that, you know, we're talking about, you know, what 1500 square feet total of between two structures and 120 foot gardening shed. Um, you know, I'm we've dealt with a lot worse or harder things and that had a lot more imposition on neighbors and that's just part of Lafayette and so I can support the uh lot line adjustment.

I'd like to ask staff a question. Um, in the public comment there was a reference and it was mentioned tonight to LMC section 6-2408D which says that we shouldn't be doing lot line adjustments if one of the parcels is in violation of previous terms of conditions. That's that's what I got out of it. Now, honestly, I I only started looking at this this afternoon, right? So, I might be completely mischaracterizing this, but that's what I got out of one of the letters. Um, and so I'm concerned about a couple things. Are we really able to make findings for a lot line revision if project is really out of out of uh not meeting conditions of approval? What condition of approval would the proposed lot revision not comply with?

No,

I I think staff is not aware of any. I I know that it's been suggested that uh the prior approval which had conditions attached to it uh is not what was built but that doesn't forstall any future conforming compliant action. So, what I think what you heard from the applicant was they were made aware of a shortcoming, a something that needed to be fixed and remedied, and they're bringing forward a proposal to remedy that through and and to bring into conformance to things which are currently nonconforming. Those being the size of 19 Spring Hill, which is non-conforming to the zoning and would conform if the LA vision is approved, and the setback for the tiny structure, the 454 square ft uh unit that that would be brought into compliance with the setbacks as an ADU, which under state law, an existing structure with zero setback can be made into an AD. ADU, but if it is a new structure, it would have to meet a minimum 4 foot setback. So, a new ADU could be constructed on a property in the city with a 4ft sideyard setback. Um, this is proposed in in the realm of 30 ft. I mean, it it it's an existing structure. So um the the proposal is to remedy those two um nonconformities via this uh proposal the lot liner revision and staff is unaware of any condition that this would violate. Um I don't believe that the condition of approval of the design review that was approved in 22 I believe um

committed the property owner to making no further proposals to bring things into conformance or change from what was previously approved. They brought forward changes to staff and yes, we we approved them deeming them to be consistent with the prior approval. Not exactly the same, but consistent with the overall spirit of what was approved. You heard testimony that the prior approval was a taller twostory bigger project and it got reduced to one story and smaller albeit closer. We believed it still to be conforming with respect to the setback. So um equated the the impacts of those two as being functionally the same. So, um, we're not aware of any condition that it would violate, but if there were a condition that it were to violate, then no, we we would not be recommending the commission approve the lot line revision. So, I'll just note kind of as an aside and anecdotally, um, lot line revisions are are largely a function of the map act. That's where they are, um, enabled. And so we have limited scope uh in in our review at at the city. Um we we do address them in our own ordinance, but functionally if if it is conforming, we would have a very difficult time in in rejecting a conforming lot liner vision.

Could I ask a followup to that? So if if what they have right now, where it is, if they hadn't done that, if they hadn't made the the changes and they realized that their plan was the the mistake that they became aware of, C, could they be doing the exact same thing right now with this lot line adjustment to perfect their idea and then go out and build what they already have there? I'm not I'm not talking about the shed. I'm talking about the pool house because I think I think um what the applicant said is once we realized that there was a mis you know that something wasn't right. The city said we we uh realized if we turned it into an ADU created you know turned it into a one-bedroom house uh we could abide by um uh zoning to to make it in conformance. So, I'm I'm asking if they could have foreseen this coming, let's just say in a magic ball, they saw, oh, our plan isn't going to work. Well, we make the changes that they want to do tonight, and that solves that issue. We'd be right here doing that. They wouldn't have built it. We'd be looking at this fresh eyes saying, "Yep, looks good." Would anything be different? That might be too um many ifs there but my spirit is would there be anything different if they hadn't done it and they'd come here with this idea to do exactly what they have built right now.

So I'm hearing the question as to the chronology of of actions would have changed but the end product would remain the same. So if they had proposed to modify the lot line revision per the current request with the existing barn and one one uh bedroom unit in it. Uh that would have been conforming. We would have recommended approval of that at that point in time. They could have come to the city, proposed the the pool house 454 square foot unit um and built it 4T from the side property line uh at the 30 ft where it would be proposed where it is currently um that would have been conforming. So yes, and I and I don't believe we would have had any ability to require a public hearing on that. ADUs. Um the the state has modified the the ADU laws extensively in the last seven years and they are ministerially acted on provided that they conform to setbacks and height limits which this does we would have approved it uh over the counter. So okay

yes the the chronology would have been different but the outcome could have been uh and would have been the same. Thank you. Okay. Um, let's get back to the deliberation unless you want to Was this deliberating or question? Absolutely. Can be a question for you. I just don't know if you have the answer. Um, I don't, but I some point let's deliberate, but if you

Yeah, I I the first I would say is I almost kind of I mean I guess with the ongoing litigation, it's hard to do so, but I almost wish staff had a rebuttal chance. I will I guess my first comment is given the plethora of stuff [snorts] involved here. I was kind of surprised with sort of how light the staff report was um in terms of just addressing at least some of the issues. This has been a great explanations which have them now been addressed. Um, but just the report itself, I think I also too kind of underestimated when I got the packet and I saw like, oh, it's not so bad. And I maybe didn't dedicate sufficient time. But I guess my my first presenting question would be if you know the answer. If we don't approve the lot line adjustment, what is then the result and what would the next steps be for the applicant?

Well, I I'd let them answer, but you know, I I would just say generically they would either accept or appeal. That's a generic answer. And if they accept that means their lot is not in conformance with the minimum requirements. Now you're going to have to ask.

Well, that's also to know like as a matter of law, as a matter of, you know, procedure, whatever you want to call it. Um, if the lot line adjustment is not approved, their lot is not in conformance with a minimum requirement, what is the follow-on effects of that? Well, it's currently non-conforming with respect to lot size, so that could persist indefinitely um and need not be be remedied. Uh they're proposing to remedy it. They have submitted an application to the city which we are compelled to act on in one fashion or another. So, it could be approved or denied. So, inaction is not an option open to the city. Um, so if it were to be denied, we would need to articulate why the the lot line revision is being denied and then they would have the right to appeal that to the city council. Okay. But there wouldn't be any sort of restrictions on the property, restrictions on the owner. your lot is not because essentially if they didn't own the ad adjacent property they couldn't obviously you know adjust the lot line to make it conforming and so that's I was kind of starting with is like just trying to get a better understanding of if we do deny that lot line adjustment what's the impact and it sounds like it's essentially just a status quo currently it wouldn't necessarily impact any of the other claims

or am I misunderstanding

I mean I I think if we go hypotheticals for them not having the I think we're getting a little off base. Um I think we really should focus on and I please keep asking if I'm not but I I want to redirect us to we have um you know we have u pull it up you know we have right in front of us findings you know and so maybe we should talk about the findings and if we have troubles with them let's discuss that because okay that's really what we have to say yay or nay on. I think that's what I was actually trying to get to was part of the findings is as noted, you know, making sure that if it is approved, the new lot is in conformity and I just just for my own, you know, thought process is if we don't approve it, it's the same scenario. And so approving it at least helps alleviate one of potentially many items, but it's at least one item off the the list. And if we don't, I just want to check to see like is that going to make it better or worse. Well,

can I share my please

thoughts? So, what I did um so it sounds like we're starting with the lot line adjustment and then we'll talk about the shed. I've reviewed the staff report. I've reviewed all of the material that's come to the planning commission and I've reviewed the findings that we need to make as a planning commissioner for the findings for a lot line adjustment. So this is in the staff report page three. I personally can make the findings uh for the lot line revision. So it's one, two, three, four findings that we would need to make. So I will just start there.

Yeah. Good. Um, I I and I I'm well, I'm I'm rereading because I want to make sure I don't miss anything here. But if anyone has anything, don't let me stop you from saying something. I mean, I guess I ultimately getting to the point where I agree that we can make the findings and I was essentially trying to flesh the options out for the benefit of obviously some concerned residents and my purely personal not at all representative of this lovely town and on any litigation but that this would not have an impact on any potential ongoing litigation or any of the other potential deficiencies that I think that's what I was trying to fully discuss that if whether we approve it or not the property will still be in existence there may still be the other problems approving it does not impact those And that was I wanted to make sure I was clarifying my understanding on that if we do approve this, it doesn't somehow magically make the other problems go away and you're skirting anything. It's just fixing a problem that exists.

Right. Well, that and that was kind of my question. If if they had fixed it before it was done, would it be any different? The only thing I heard different was that the building could be built four feet away from the top of the line instead of 30 feet. So, in a sense, I I doubt anyone would want that, but I know that that's not going to take frustration away from one of the two parties here. So, at this point, typically I ask for a motion because you either have questions. You say what you can do or can't do or we vote. Uh I I I can make the findings. Okay. I usually wait, but I'm just going to say it because I want to get us to a vote.

That's two of you. I I'm still unsure. I I maybe you can help me understand then. I my understanding was the building currently is too close to the neighbor's property. But if we go through these two if we do this lot line adjustment then it'll become an ADU and it'll be clo it'll be okay. Is that is that the understanding that I'm that what you guys have or am I missing something? No, I I Yes, but I don't think that affects the findings, but yes, I I I think I agree with what you're saying.

And so that's what I was trying to clarify. If we don't approve the lot line adjustment, can they not still declare that building an ADU? That's what I was I'm sure it's in the packet and I apologize if I missed it. Oh, I did. But if we don't approve the lot line adjustment, can they not still just call that building an ADU? There's no other Oh, no. There's no other That's right. There's no other There's no other There's no 80 junior to the mass, you know, to the bigger. I see. Okay. And and by doing the lot line adjustment, they bring that other one bedroom into the property. I see. Okay. It's hardly the only forming lot,

the structure lot yet. And just anecdotally, there are applicants who seek to build the ADU first on their property so that they can live there while the main house is being built. And but the the first unit on the property is the primary dwelling unit. And then when the main bigger residence is built and becomes uh gets their certificate of occupancy that then takes the moniker of the primary dwelling unit and what was initially built the earlier uh chronology unit becomes the ADU. So that has happened and and we get that question um not infrequently because of the way they want to proceed with their project. But in in that scenario, you would typically have to abide by the setback. You couldn't do the four feed.

Correct.

Okay. So, you cannot take advantage of the of the um lesser requirements associated with an ADU. You would have the first unit would have to comply with the primary unit setbacks. Um yes. And so in my mind I keep going back to if they had realized this before any work had been done they could have taken this strategy and I'm not trying to say either side was making a decision just oh look we can't do that but here we can do this we can adjust these lot lines and therefore this could be the ADU and therefore we can put it wherever we want up to four feet. Um, so that that gave me a lot of solace because otherwise it does feel like there's potential to be working around it. But you know, I can't say that I can't say that. I don't believe that. But you could you could say why one party could be, you know, perturbed that that could happen. So um, all right. Uh, so again, I will offer to hear a motion or talk more. But I'd like other people to talk more and me less.

Well, [clears throat] in terms of making findings, I am still concerned about the the letter from the law firm, but I I'm going to have to rely on staff's assessment that that there are there's nothing that would apply. And if that's wrong, then it's going to come up in court and it's going to be ruled on. So, um I'm going to rely on staff saying that that this will work out correctly. Um otherwise, you know, it's it's just it's it's kind of a mess. I I'm I'm kind of not really happy that that we that this lands in our lap at this stage when there's lawsuits ongoing, but that's what it is. Do we have information about the any upcoming court dates when there might be a likely decision? Anything like that?

Um, not to my knowledge, but the I did the the city attorney is aware of this current application to try to remedy the the two nonconformities which have been discussed this evening. Um and the city attorney is comfortable with the planning commission considering it and acting on it. Um so they have reviewed the the staff report and I I did speak with the city attorney as well. Exact same story. We are under a streamline permitting act. So there is a time frame based off of when SQA is approved which would be tonight. But we do have to make that's why we have to go yes or no.

Um so I think we need to make a decision. I I know it's frustrating. I'm I'm I'm frustrated, but I think we need to You want to call it then? Well,

well, and I mean, I'll keep talking. I'll talk all night. But if we don't, again, and I'm just trying to because I want to hash out all the options. We don't approve it, that building instead of becoming an ADU is deemed, I guess, the primary residency for that lot. and it would be nonconforming given its location within the setback. And then what? They're forced to tear it down. Um they can tear down and build something bigger. Uh like was the original residence that it sounds like what they originally did was tear down a much larger building and put up a much smaller one, but they would be within the right if we don't do it tonight. They could say, "Okay, tear that thing down." They tear it down and build up a much larger, more obtrusive building. that would be further set back because as I understand it that's why one of the contentions was that the original that's what was going to originally happen and they decided to go something smaller shorter but closer the DRC approved a taller larger structure which subsequent to the DRC approval they came the applicant came to staff with changes to make it shorter and smaller and a little bit closer to the property land. Yes. Um so it could be torn down that would address the the substandard setback. Um if they pursued a reszoning to be just like everybody else uh all the other properties on the street that could also be a remedy to uh the the matter. the subject lot lliner vision could also address it. Um they could come back with you know if were they to demolish it they could p submit an application to build a a larger uh

structure for sure um arguably meeting the 50oot setback or um if they pursue a var a variance is another option uh to pursue. So there are other options to pursue. So, I think that they Well, you heard what they said.

Anybody else? Well, the motion I'm not making one yet, but [snorts] the res uh I'll reward this. The resolution also speaks to the shed variance. Is that something we want to also discuss? Sure. That's true. Um,

and I'll I'll just add unless I missed something, the resolution is written for denial of the shed variance and acceptance of the lot line adjustment. So, if it's something that we make a motion on that's different than that staff, right, we would make the the motion and then ask staff to bring back the resolution and consent. How would that work if our motion is different?

Correct. So if you were to make a motion for a different action other than what staff has pro prepared in the draft resolution, we would ask you to articulate that motion and then discuss and um provide clarity so that staff can come back at a subsequent meeting um with a draft resolution that articulates the commission's u findings around one or both of the matters um that the the resolution addresses. Thanks. So, I just want to bring that up also.

It just made me realize that the uh the shed is kind of like uh how was I going to say that? If if they So, oh, it's kind of like your scenario because if we deny that. So, what what do we expect to happen if we deny that? They tear down the shed, they move the shed, they come back and change the zoning or the request to change the zoning. These are all options. I believe those are all options that they could pursue. They could tear it down, move it. um seek to reszone. I I would expect um and I believe that well they they could I guess do those pursue those at after this tonight's uh action. Um they could also appeal tonight's action up to the city council.

And what would the what would that zoning be? It's it's it's not going to be LR5, right? So it's what what would it be there? R20.

It would be R20. Yes. So the the rest of the the street is R meaning residential, 20 meaning properties have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. So functionally half an acre. Whereas this is the first and only property on the street that is LR5 low density residential. The five meaning one dwelling unit per five acres. So substantially larger lot sizes and commens arely substantially larger uh setbacks because they're typically in more uh rural settings

and that once one dwelling unit plus now with ADU law an ADU if if that wouldn't preclude the ADU that's why they're doing this a primary unit and an ADU and even a JADU uh can be on a R designated property or LR. So yes, they're functionally the same. The the only difference between R and LR is lot size and setbacks.

Is there can you could you would you be able to discuss the viability of that going through or does that I know that kind of puts you on the spot to and that would be something that would come back to this commission, right? If they were to change the zoning or request to change the zoning, it would come back to the planning commission and I'm not really prepared to speak to that this evening. Okay. Other than it is an option that they could pursue. I mean, anyone can ask for a reasonzoning at any time. Um Okay. But there's a a process and an application to go through.

Yeah. Thank you. I I knew that question was maybe too loaded. make a motion. Does But anyone have any last questions before a motion gets made? I was just going to say I actually thought the shed was the more likely for us because it's a rural n I mean for me a shed potting shed screams rural but I mean I know I might be in the minority here. I was more than happy to find it that we should be allowed to leave it in place. Um I know it's I know it's a significantly less contentious issue.

Well I mean I struggle with that one too. I it seems silly to me, but you know, I'm trying to stay if I'm gonna make the findings on this one, I need to make the findings on that one. So, I know what I'm going to do. Well, my motion then is going to mess that up.

So, I'm going to make a motion that um we find the project exempt from SQA. We do not adopt the resolution in front of us. Rather, we asked staff to come back with a resolution approving the variance for the lot line adjustment and approving the variance for the potting shed. Staff staff has a Oh, we we heard the motion to include a variance for the lot liner vision. Um, okay. I I said that wrong. Excuse me.

So, would you mind resting?

Yeah. Yeah, I I definitely said that wrong. Um I'm revising my motion and it would be that we ask staff to bring back a new resolution. In the resolution, we would approve the lot line adjustment and we would approve the variance for the potting shed. Could I make a friendly adder to it? Um that we also include this resolution too with that one which just so we have both available. Um which would mean uh approve the lot line adjustment and deny. I'd just like to have both of them so we can resolve it once and for all at our next meeting. Would you be okay with that? Um, I'm not opposed to that, but I think what I was intending is that we would all through this motion, we would all by voting on what I'm proposing, we'd all be on the same page that that's what we were planning on approving rather than discussing it. Got

again next say no and then we'll vote on that and and we get there, we get there. So, we're not going to amend it. Is that right? And that's fine. Correct. Okay. Okay. Not in my version. Not Not in your Okay. Do we have a second? Sorry. Wait, what? I'm confused. What's going on?

My motion is if you look at tonight's resolution, staff is recommending denial of the potting shed variance and approval of the lot line adjustment. In my amendment to that, I'd be asking staff to come back with a resolution that is still approving the lot line adjustment, but instead of denying the potting shed variance, it would be approving the potting shed variance. And so you're saying that we would vote no on the current one because that denies the shed and we would like you would like to approve it.

We're not it under mine. We wouldn't be voting yes or no on the current. We'd be voting yes or no at what I'm proposing. Yes. Staff. U so you you could uh your motion could include continue to the next meeting and direct staff to bring back a resolution which approves the lot liner vision and approves the variance.

Thank you. I will revise my motion and um ask staff to please bring back to the next meeting on the November 17th a resolution to approve the lot line adjustment and approve the variance request for the potting shed. And just point of clarification, so regardless of how we vote on this, we still will be voting on that next meeting. Got it.

And I'm saying that for myself because I'm not necessarily 100% down with that, but I I but we still will be voting for a resolution at the next meeting. Question for staff. Is it possible to break this up into two separate votes? vote for the lot line revision which were and then a second vote for the uh potting shed variance. I don't know is that he's simpler

procedurally you could do that we could bring back two resolutions um I think by your action tonight whatever action that turns out to be you would be so indicating and and we had brought a a yes and a no functionally a yes to the lot an approval for the lot llin revision and a denial for the variance whatever your direction is to us. We can bring a a new resolution back or the new resolution and this original or we could bring back two separate resolutions, but functionally those will it it's six one half dozen of another. But yes, you you could do that. Thank you,

chair. my my opinion is I I'd like to have separate items because I I don't feel that we fully discussed why the uh why they're deserving of an variance on the shed. Okay. So, you want the two two separate Yeah.

But I think the one advantage that just having this next meeting everyone's got to be damn sure to be rock solid in your findings of what you think you're I mean that myself as well and give us all a chance to be a little more in depth with what we have which I don't think is bad this is a very nuance so I don't think that's bad I just will share that um by my motion you can see how I feel so someone's welcome to make a second or not or make a new motion.

So just point of clarification, I think I might have misheard you a ways back. Was there a time clock we had for this approval or not? Yeah, I believe we have 60 days from the SQA action. Okay, I believe. Okay, so we wouldn't Okay. Okay. I misunderstood. All right. I didn't hear a second for a sec. I'll second. Wait. Seconding what? Uh, Commissioner Radnich's motion. But your motion was you wanted to have it separated. That's not her. No, I The question was could we Oh, it's the same effect of what? Okay.

Okay. So So I'm going to clarify what we're going to vote on. So right now we're voting to bring to the next meeting a resolution that exempts SQUA adopts whatever the resolution cause is called approving the variance for the shed and approving the lot line adjustment. Um I'm just going to do a roll call vote. Um communi commission and not not to put anyone on the spot but I'm going to start over there. Commissioner Dario. No. So, no to I want them split. So, Okay. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Radnich, I. Um, Commissioner Mason,

I. Vice Chair Dem. Hi. Oh, man. I'm thinking this. Um, um, I I would like them split. So, I'm going to vote no. Okay. So now that motion didn't pass. 32. It was It did pass. It did. Oh, three in favor. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Did pass here. I thought I was the deciding vote. I wasn't. Okay, never mind. Well, at least you know I'm honest in how I voted. Assume. Fair enough. You'd assumed I'd make it more complicated. Fair enough. All right. All right. Motion has passed. Um and an applicant has

no no opportunities at this point except to come back in two weeks when the matter will be ruled on. Thank you. Well discussed you you have options open to you at the next meeting as well. All right. Uh thank you. We but the matter is continued to two weeks from today. Yes. Matters continued from two weeks from today. So you carries three to two. Sorry by 3 to2. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I I can't count. I'm a little stressed right now. Um All right. Uh thank you. Uh we're doing fine on time. So, why don't we go to our second? Um let me look at my agenda real quick.

Yeah. I just want to make sure I'm So, can we can we go on to 7 B? I'll turn that over to staff.

Thank you. Um, just give me one second while I transfer slides. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Um, to reintroduce myself again, Nicole Little. I am also the project planner for this appeal um of the zoning administrator's determination of denial on this um design review and variance application at 7 L Creek Lane. For some site context, again located on the screen, this project site is located again in the northeastern portion of Lafayette at the end of Lark Creek Lane, which is a private drive. um parcel seven Lark Creek Lane and five Lark Creek Lane um are under common ownership. Five Lark Creek Lane is the like I said the adjacent property to the north uh northeast. [snorts] The zoning administrator um considered the variance request on February 6, 2025 and denied the request as the findings for a variance could not be made. Um properties [clears throat] this property 7 Lark Creek Lane is typical of the R20 zoning district and that it's similar in size, shape, and topography, relatively flat and unconstrained. Um, as part of the variance request, the existing barn does encroach into the required 15 foot sideyard setback. And this encroachment is due to the original sighting of the structure, not site constraints. In um staff and the zoning administrator's analysis of the application, there are no special

circumstances that exist to justify a variance. granting it would be a special privilege not afforded to other R20 properties. Um other properties in the zoning district do um meet the setback requirements and approving this variance would conflict with the zoning codes intent. So while the residential use does align with the general plan um the variance conflicts with the purpose of the setback standards namely building separation, privacy and neighborhood character. Hence staff's recommendation is the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt planning commission resolution 202513 denying the appeal and upholding the zoning administrator's denial of the application. Thank you. Um do we have an elevation of the wall up against the property line? because my concern is uh emergency egress and access when they only have limited space.

Yes, let me pull that up. Um as part of the process of this item going before the zoning administrator, it was referred to the fire district and extensive conversation with the fire district was had to determine whether you know adequate access was possible. And I believe that the fire district did determine that um excess would be possible and safe for this property. But let me pull up the elevations for you. And is there a floor plan of the proposed residence? Yes. You can pull that up also.

Of course. Okay. So first what's shown on screen is the proposed floor plan. Um looking here this is the the first story. So bedroom, living area, dining office, um laundry facilities. The second story would be a loft area and this would just be open to below on the first story. I'll also pull up the elevations. So, um, just for some context, existing elevations of what currently exists on the property and above is what is proposed. [clears throat] So, looking at we'll pull up the elevation that is showing what is facing the um what is closest to the existing property line, which is this northeast elevation. and they have called out the 1-hour fire assembly um areas for fire to access via these windows.

Thank you. And um did you say it's the same ownership for both properties? Correct. Is there is there a reason why that the ownership couldn't request a lot line adjustment and and bring this into something that we'd be okay with? Um that was an option that the um applicants and the property owners could have pursued. Um what's the setback they're required? 15. How how far is it between the two buildings?

I believe currently It's roughly 15 15.4T. Oh, but it's from property. Yes. So, the variance request was for this 1.33 foot um distance from the property line because 7 and five L Creek Lane are separate lots, but they're currently both owned by the same people. Correct. And the people who because that's under construction right now. This one. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. This is an Yeah. This is a a survey a previous. So if we go to this, this is a the site plan which shows five Lark Creek Lane um with its it it received an um approval to modify the home on five Lark Creek Lane. Well, yeah. So, there's not enough room to move it 15 feet because it has to be 15 feet from each property line, right? So, you need 30 feet in between. Yes, correct. And that's what was there? Is that what you're saying? Sorry. Um,

is that existing? I mean, not existing, but prior. I guess what I'm trying to understand is why did someone build a building this close to a building and then

yeah I can yeah I can explain kind of so the history um so this five three five and seven were part of a um a three lot subdivision and as part of that subdivision there was intent to um put single family residences on each of those three lots. Um, and so the house on Five Light Creek Lane and the barn were existing when that minor subdivision occurred. And through and through subsequent um, you know, applications, the the barn, the demolish of the barn and building of a another single family or a single family structure never came to fruition. So it's a the nonconformity is a nature of the previous minor subdivision,

but that's house is under construction right now, right? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Five L Creek Lane.

So all right. So page 14 of your staff report and perhaps Miss Ziddle can bring up page 14 of your staff report shows the original subdivision which establishes that new property line 1.3 ft from the barn. and it shows the barn being removed and the construction of a new conforming single family residence in the future. So the the vision that was laid out as with the three lot subdivision was three conforming homes none of which required a variance. Um and so now you chair you're right that the property on screen right at five has redeveloped so that they've designed something and it's under construction there. Concurrently, they are pursuing a variance to keep what is existing 1.3 ft from the property line and convert that existing structure into a residential structure.

Question, do we have an approximate age of the existing barn? If not, the applicant uh if you could address that because the question is is obvious is the barn's going to have to be brought up to code anyway. So why not just relocate it? Yeah, we if we haven't gone to their comment talking something to keep in the back of your mind. So I'll ask that or

any any other clarif Nicole if you can clarify for us. Um, so my understanding from what I've heard is that at the time of the subdivision, the plan was to have a house and to tear down the barn. That wasn't done. And in fact, I think it the the barn was renovated once. Okay,

that's correct. Um and so now the the the request is to have a variance um which basically is it's a change from all the the previous approved plans, right? Um did did the applicant consider reducing the size of the barn or this the insides to be an ADU? Would that be a way to get around the v this variance.

Um I'll I'll yield to the applicant to respond to that, but um AD, you know, as kind of mentioned in the last item, you know, ADU law um and our ordinance um allows for a 4ft side and rear yard setbacks. Um actually um correction um the conversion of existing space into an ADU yes could have a potentially a zero um oh a zero a zero yard set back if the structure currently exists at zero. So 4 foot for new construction or whatever exists. That's correct. Or an existing structure being converted into an ADU. Thank you.

Question. Well, that gets to what's considered new construction because a barn is deemed a non-habitable structure. Uh, a barn does not have to be designed for earthquake load loading. It obviously doesn't have plumbing, doesn't have HVAC, uh, lacks a moisture membrane on the slab. I mean, it's it's basically going to be just a there's not going to be much left by the time you build it over again. the state would consider if if this structure were it to be an existing structure, they'll take a carport, they'll take a shed, they'll accept a barn as an existing structure and allow it to be converted into a conforming ADU, provided that it's meeting both the the minimum standards laid out in state law and uh health and safety code, building code.

Thank you. But it would need to be four feet off the property line. It's conversion of an an existing structure. So it would be the existing setback. Okay. But it needs to have a primary primary. Correct. And this one's solo on this property. Correct. This is the only structure that exists on the property. And to our earlier question, you can't do the ADU under its setback and then build the primary secondary to get the ADU. you'd have to. So, hey, we learned something earlier

and I believe we've discussed all of these potential options with the applicant. I I think Mr. Kubichek is nodding. And just to clarify, um the I'm assuming the intent is to then sell this parcel. It's not the fact that we could like Oh, yeah. Like to the question we get to be like, well, okay, could they just merge the parcels um and then it would get rid of the problem? But I'm assuming that was not an option. That's that was discussed with them as well.

Okay. All right. Any other clarif I did I hear this right? There there's no proposed reasons why there should be a variance. Is is that the right way to hear say it? Um I would say that the in looking at the findings in order to you know approve or recommend approval for a variance they could not be made um because um kind I believe it's the first finding um you know any sort of site constraint shape size topography that would preclude standard development and this um for the findings this site has the ability to do that.

Now look at B. Okay. Okay. Um, thank you staff. Uh, if the applicant has someone who wants to speak, come on up. Turn on the microphone. Introduce yourself. Get ready. Is that on? I think so. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, good evening. My name is Steven Kubichek. the designer of the project and the owners of the property are here, Kathy and Tom Wi and um they purchased this this property [clears throat] as two lots. Um they asked me to redesign the main house for them and to take the existing barn that exists on the on the on the adjacent parcel and convert it into a living space for elderly family members. So you the the house the the barn the existing barn is a very fine barn. There's nothing wrong with it. It is structurally sound. It has a great foundation. It is wellb built. It was probably renovated at some point. It's not a barn like you would think a barn is. It's got great windows in it. It's it's in great structural uh condition. [clears throat and cough] So to take it and convert it into a living space um wasn't challenging at all and to create a space for their elderly family member to live on the f on the first floor, maintain the existing loft which would probably never be used because they they can't climb stairs very well. So um so the idea was to convert it into a living space for for them. um because we were changing the use of the property of the building um it became an issue with the with the planning department and that's why we started to go into a variance hearing. Um the the variance or the findings could not be made by staff to say that we are not we cannot enjoy this property to the extent that others can be can enjoy their property. um and that there were no unusual constraints on the property when in fact there is an unusual constraint. The unusual constraint on this property is that we have a very fine barn and to ask to pick

it up and move it is ownorous on the on the property owner. Um there's nothing wrong with this structure. And so the unusual constraint is that this barn exists and it's for their family use and they have no intention of ever selling this lot or mean or separating the the the livability of both properties. Um someone in the future may buy this lot, tear the barn down and build a house according to what the um what the intent was for the subdivision, but that's not the Wii's intent. they would they would like to have this barn converted into a space for their elderly family member to live in. And so here we are. Um we're not expanding a non-conformity. We're creating the 1-hour firewall according to according to the fire district. Um and while it doesn't ex while it doesn't adhere to the strict code for the setbacks, it does exist today in its current form and we're only changing its use. Um, it could be said that there are many buildings in Lafayette that are the in a situation like this. We looked at creating an ADU out of it. ADU, accessory dwelling unit, accessory to something. Well, there's nothing accessory. There's nothing that it can be an accessory to because there's no main there's no main house on the property for it to become an accessory dwelling unit on this parcel. It's accessory to the existing to the house that's under construction for them, but that's a separate lot. So, what we're asking to do is to convert the use of this building into a living quarters. And yes, it's a it's 1.3 ft away from their property line, their common property line, but it's their common property line, and it's their family member that's living there. So, can the findings be made uh that this is an unusual constraint

that other properties in the neighborhood can might have and should be able to do? I believe that there is and I I'm happy to answer any questions for you. Uh any clarifying questions for applicant? You go. Hold on. Do you have one after? Yeah. Well, usually we'll bring up the bonus of being vice chair. Sorry. Um so had you considered merging parcels A and B? Was that asked already? No, we we considered it. Yeah, we consider it. Yeah. Um, that would be removing a lot of value from this property.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have a question? That was going to be my question. Um, so I essentially, you know, the stated purpose of elderly family member living there, which I have tremendous sympathy for. Um, but if that is the stated purpose, then that is the obvious answer. If you merge it, it can then it very much is an ADU because there's the primary residence. Um,

if I if I could, um, the existing building is over 1,200 square f feet. You have a maximum of ADUs, an ADU footage of,200 ft. With the loft upstairs, it it puts it goes over 1,200 square feet for an ADU. Even if we did merge the two lots, I I I have a question. How long h have has have the family owned uh this property? Three years, two May of 2023.

The reason I ask is um and so did did the construction start after you guys bought the land or the existing house was on the property. Um, we went through a scenario of trying to renovate the existing house. It wasn't satisfying their needs. So, we ended up tearing it down and there's a new house. So, we took it down to the foundation or took it down to the ground, took the old foundation out and are building a new house in its place.

So, so why at that point didn't you say, "Well, you know, the family member who's going to live there arguably was a family member back when you were considering that." Why didn't you say, "Well, according to the code, if we want to make this, we need this far of a setback." and just deal with it then because it's it seems like it could have been dealt with and do a lot line adjustment. No, not build. Well, no, but I guess I guess you could have been a lot that's what you would have done. Yeah, exactly.

Right. One of the one of the things about the lot that the house that the barn sits on is that it is a it is a constrained lot in that there's a creek that goes through it. So, there is a pretty hefty creek setback. If someone was to tear the barn down and build a house on that site, it would be very constrained because of the creek, the creek setback that's running through it. That notwithstanding, that's not the intent of the owners of the property. They just they just want to take the barn and convert it into living living quarters. Um, I would also add that it is very far away from any neighboring properties that are not the homeowner. Um, it sits in the middle of the property as you look at it north south as well as from the what is that? The western property line. Um, so the impact to neighbors is negligible.

I I don't I'm not sure you or I didn't hear the answer, but maybe you did. I missed it. Why? When the house was being rebuilt, didn't take consideration of the land and do adjustment, not moving the barn, but just moving the lot line so that you would have the proper setback. And it probably would have meant you didn't build the the newer house, the bigger house quite as close to it. uh when we started to work on the on the existing um we we built we're building the ex the new home in the vicinity in the direct vicinity of where the old house was. It's in the in the same setback line 15 ft off of that property line. Um we didn't think this would be an issue. Why would we? And why would we diminish the size of that property? One of the things that came up when we were doing the design of the of the home was that we wanted to have those trees preserved along the eastern edge of the property. So moving the property line constrains that lot. The lot line was placed where it was because of the the house that was there.

That that that photograph that you're looking at there is the old house. That's the old house. Okay. And so the creek is like in the shadow going this way. Yeah. It runs right through there. Exactly. Is that is there anything that shows the setback lines on any of these, you know, um for the creek? Nicole, you might be able to go to the um to the site plan. Um, you can see this you can see the the flow line of the creek running through there. It doesn't show the actual setback, but there's a really it's a sliver of land that a house could go into. There's even a bridge that goes across.

So, where those tight contour where the tight contours are, it dropped. That's the setback. Yeah, it's relatively flat and then it drops down. The setback is shown on there actually. Um, see where it says proposed house pad 408? There's a broken line right just outside there. Structure setback, it says. So, it's Mr. It's a very constrained lot because of that. Um, and the barn meets, you know, is not within that existing barn. But that's the structural setback from the creek. All right. Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate that. Any other questions, Commissioner Mason?

Um, not speaking for anybody else, but at least in my mind, you're somewhat disadvantaged because the old more senior planning commission members, we went through this almost exact same thing on a project on Aalani's road, even had a creek there. They It was for elderly relatives. And then after it was built, we drove by and there was a for sale sign there,

you know, and and and I I talked to the owner. He said, "Hey, you know, I I was I was serious, but you know, my father was old and he passed." So, you know, we do, at least in my mind, I do think past a future homeowner and a future uh um uh owner of that property. And that's a big ask for a future not for family member, right? But for a a a future uh owner. Thank you.

My my response to you is that this barn is not the best use of this land. And we all know what Lafayette property values are like and we all know what people look for when they are thinking about developing a a parcel in in the city of Lafayette. and it is not to have a,400 square foot barn on a two two and a half million dollar whatever the value is of this land. Um if they decided to sell it, the chances that this barn exists 6 months after the a new buyer buys it is pretty

negligible. Negligible. someone's going to tear it down and build something that's like that footprint that was proposed back when the when the development was done. So, this is truly something that they want for their family member and it's not I I I I don't know the situation that you're talking about on a on ais, but I do know that this is not the best use for this land, but that's not the intent of the weeds. All right. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Um, next we will open it up to anyone else in the public who has or wants to speak. Just make sure you put a card up front. Could what we've heard from the audience without a microphone is that they submitted their comments in writing. And was that when was that? Was it today? Like because there's a certain point and they were published with the staff reports. Okay. Okay. Okay. Very good. Yeah. I appreciate that. Sometimes we get stuff at the last minute.

I have a day job. I don't always get to those. Um Okay. Any other public comments? And thank you. I I did read them. I'm sure everyone did. Um so I'll uh staff, anyone online? No raised hands online. Okay. Um then the applicant, you have the ability if you would like to rebut anything. It's up to you. Otherwise,

I think I think we're good. Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll bring it back to the commission to discuss. I I have a question for staff and this is an oddball question. So I is there ever has there ever been or is it possible to have a variance that does not uh continue after a transfer of property? So in other words, could you do a variance that is good for while it's the current owners um owning the land and then if it's sold then it's back to normal standards.

Good question. That's a good question. I believe you can condition if if the commission were to approve the variance, you could condition it with the the variance terminating at sale of the property. And so the and condition on you know functionally the demolition of the house pri of the barn uh the structure the non-conforming structure prior to sale of the property. I think that that would be legal to do. Um so has that happened before? Not to my knowledge. No.

Okay.

Could could it could it does it have to be demolition? Could it just be like occupancy is removed that it's no longer I'm just wondering as options. I think you could phrase it however you would like. uh administration and enforcement becomes the the issue that if the document of record says that it will be demolished before sale before the transfer happens the buyer would be aware of that. If it says that you know occupancy is withdrawn but none of the kind of health and safety standards regarding occupancy have changed the and the buyer it does transfer and there's you know functionally no way for the city to it it gets very complicated and and becomes a burden for the city a a greater burden for the city to enforce. But but on the uh demolition there there's what's the actual trigger like sale but but it's it doesn't physically if it if they don't physically demolish does the sale not go through

the escrow officer should not allow that sale to go through unless that condition is satisfied. All right. Did you have a question? Well, don't we already have a model for that with the ADU ordinance where they must maintain uh shared ownership of both of them? And so if they wanted to split it off, they would have to uh deal with the deed restriction.

This is a separate property, so it's it's a little apples and oranges. um ADUs are on the the property with the primary dwelling unit. And so there's really no mechanism to to sell it independently. There's no real property, tangible real property that that is distinct from the the main residence. It's all one. Um this this is separate and distinct. It's just under common ownership now. And so we we've heard the applicants representations around it, but I think to Commissioner Deorgio's question that that could be condition, but it it becomes um problematic. I mean, we we've had residents living in homes before they got their final inspection and certificate of occupancy and and it's um a burden on the city to do enforcement on it.

Thank you. Um all right, deliberation. Any other comments internally? I did want to make one I did want to make one more comment um regarding um uh the concerns for from the Hagers. Um I I did get your letters and um my my my comment about that was that the the existing barn if it was changed in use, I mean it's still the same height that it is now. Um, and so I understand that you're reticent to have um taller buildings in the neighborhood, but by their and staff, correct me if I'm wrong, houses are allowed to be built up to um 35 ft or two and a half stories in the neighborhood right now. It just they haven't been right. So, the fact that that you got an old barn that's there that's going to be used, has been reconditioned and proposed to be used, I heard your concerns, but but I I think that it's already, you know, kind of out of the out of the gate, so to speak. So that's the new

So I'm going to ask the audience member to go to the microphone if they are going to speak and address the commission. Yeah, I think we got it. But if you want to, you're welcome to. Okay. Fine. Um All right. Um any other you have any any

I mean I was ready to not to to agree with staff that it did not meet the requirements for the variance but if we have the other tool in our pocket that we can essentially limit it to because you know the my concern was always like oh they say it's for an elderly family member and then they do it and then they sell it and you know skirt the stuff but if we can restrict it reliably and forcibly that it can be used essenti for this purpose and then if they do wish to sell the land and if they can absolutely sell the parcel [clears throat] it no longer applies and they don't have that like the new owner would essentially have to demolish it. Um my first point would be if when they sell it I agree it's almost certainly going to be demolished and something bigger built there especially if you're buying in that neighborhood and you know new construction is not exactly smaller these days. Um but I I think if we have that capability where we can say that sure they can renovate it enough for an elderly family member I suppose maintain that I don't know if they could rent it out but like essentially if they want to sell the lot and transfer ownership then yes it ends and now you must build a conforming structure I think I can be in favor of that. Well, I

Yeah, go ahead. I think that's in some ways another conversation for another time. I'm perfectly comfortable with the uh agreeing to deny it if they can come back with a mechanism and work it out with staff

and work it out with city attorney and stuff like that. Then we could all get behind and staff and say yes, this is fine. I mean, I don't want to kick somebody out of a house. Um, and um, but I do recognize the need, you know, for taking care of uh, you know, elderly families. Uh, but I personally just have a hard time overturning design reviews finding because they spend a lot of time going through this also. and I'm not willing to I don't see a good reason for me to substitute my my thoughts for theirs.

Also,

yeah, I think that was really well said, Commissioner Mason, and I think it's a nice kind of combination of the two. I think wanting to be supportive of the applicant and the applicant's need for, you know, what they need personally out of their two properties. But I do agree it's not up to us to try to find a solution for the applicant, but we're being open to providing a solution to the applicant if they so choose to look at a couple different options with staff or with their architect. And there there's a lot of options. There's a lot line adjustment. There's a house that could have accommodated extra rooms for family members. Right now, it's not a tiny house, right? There's there's a lot of options and I don't think it's up to us to try to create a solution.

Okay. Personally, okay, but I do but I do think like I will say I think it's a huge compliment to our planning commission tonight of Commissioner Deorgio, excuse me. That's right. This suggestion I hadn't thought of when I was reviewing the staff report. I did come in just completely prepared to agree with staff's recommendation. So I think that was a great train of thought to share with the public and with the planning commissioner or planning commission and commissioner Mason also. I appreciate your take on it as well. So that's where I stand. Let's go.

All right. Um, I'm going to finish this hopefully then we can make a motion to do something. Um,

yeah, I think all of us like to try to help people out and and it's you have a family and we're not we're not we're not really supposed to adjudicate based on who's buying or why you're buying or what. It's by this. But it's really hard because we live in this town too. Um, one thing I will say is that property if in my mind sometimes when a variance is asked it it it it impinges on other people more because of where it is. It's on this side and there's people on that side and you're doing stuff moving this way. This one's kind of sheltered. So, I was less I was more it was more frustrating because I'm like I want to figure out how to do this. But um I I think we've gotten to a really good point of place because there's a potential solution here and I really like your idea and I really like your idea

and I'm sure I like stuff you guys said too. But uh so I think on that we should let the you know I agree. So if someone wants to make a a motion let's let's get going on this. Okay. Want to do it. All right. I'll make a motion that we find the project exempt from SQA and adopt PC resolution 2025. 2025-13 denying an appeal and upholding the zoning administrator's denial of DR0724 in V7-24. Second.

Uh let me just ask a question. Is there any um procedural difference between denying it and asking them to consider to come back with with some other thing? or would it just be better to deny it and let them come back with a um you know another way at the mouse trap. Generally when the the commission asks for something to to come back an alternative to come back it it is a redesign of some sort of a physical alteration and I think that is not what the commission is

considering here. If it is a um kind of procedural and legal change, um you could continue it and see if they can iron that out with the city attorney um in the intervening time if that would uh factor into your decision. If you're you you could deny it and the the applicant has the ability to appeal it to the city council and hear what you had said about this um additional feature, if you will, the the the that it lapses at sale um and bring that with their appeal to the city council. That's an option. Um and the council would be provided with, you know, your your action this evening and your comments from the minutes and and certainly they could watch the hearing. Um or they you could deny and they can pursue the what you've discussed um as a as a feature and then reapply. Um

is there a cost difference? Is there a timing you know aspect? I mean, because I think what we want is them to consider it and come back. And is it better to deny that or just continue it? Let them uh consider that and then maybe amend their application. I I I feel like that would be better, but I don't know. We haven't asked them. I mean, so um Yeah. But if they don't come back, then we've left this whole thing. No, no, but then we would we would bring it forward at a set date, and if they don't come back, we just deny it and move on. Yeah.

Yeah. So, I think it it what I'm sensing is that the commission wants to give the the applicant the opportunity to add this additional feature which would have the the variance lapse at sale. Um, and I think we can discuss with them further the the requirement to actually demolish the structure prior to sale so that we don't run into the kind of ongoing circumstance of it persisting. Um and so you can give them additional time. You can continue it to a future date certain. I would like them to acknowledge the the kind of discussion the opportunity they're being given and and consent to an ex a time extension because we do have to act on applications within prescribed time frames. And so, um, given it's the first meeting in November and we're not going to iron this out in the next three days to be able to make the next meeting. Um, and December is challenging for for a variety of reasons. I I would recommend it the earliest the first meeting in January. And so, if we could get them to consent to the to the a 90-day extension, that would be great. and they would have the opportunity to bring it back and if they could come back with no changes and you can still consider

and I would actually prefer that because they put a set date on it and I would actually like to I would like to confirm that we can consult with the city's attorney to make sure we can actually do this. We can we can so consult after they would the applicant like I I mean what I would say is regardless of if they want to do this or not I would like to know if for any future things that this comes up on if we can do this or not. Yeah. Even if they don't want to. I guess I feel like we're um there's so many options that could take place that by us focusing in on one of 10 different options that could take place,

I don't think that's appropriate. Personally, I think we've discussed that there could be things if the applicants team following our decision tonight, they can appeal a decision. They can go back to staff and offer lot line adjustment. They could they can build a house that conforms. They can

build an ADU on their middle prop parcel B. I don't think it's our place. Personally, I don't support continuing this to a date set in January to give them the option on one option personally. So, I'm in support of denying it or agree, excuse me, agreeing with staff's recommendation, which is denial, and then the applicants team can decide how they would like to move forward using one of the items we discussed tonight or not, or a different one personally.

Well, my my proposal is still on the table. So, there's a first. Is there any reason I can't ask the applicant a question right now? you're the chair. I just want to make sure. Okay. So, applicant. Um

I'm just curious because it sounds like there's a slim sliver that if you said, "Hey, you think that might be something you'd be willing to do that it I believe it'd be easier to say, okay, here's 90 days this date certain. You come back, work it out with the city, and then we'll review it and and we'll vote on it." But if you don't feel that you want to go that way, just tell us now and this is me now. We're going to vote on it. Then we'll just deny it and you can do whatever the heck you want. Yeah. Please stand up there, sir. Just uh tell us who you are. Thanksgiving.

Yeah, you might be right.

I have my marching orders. [laughter] Um, well, first of all, good evening and thank you for this uh opportunity to hear the logic. I've learned a lot. I'm a pretty quick study actually. Um so I think uh just right now in conversing with my wife you know we're we're also despite appearances pretty old ourselves and uh I think uh our pursuit of that barn making it livable for for our family member is really our best option you know from a personal perspective I know it's not your mission we we get that too um so I think the cut it short. the the best road forward for us is to figure out a legal language that applies this feature, if you will, to say, "Hey, if we sell that second lot, the seven L Creek lot where the barn sits, then it triggers that the barn has to be demolished and it has to comply with all of the existing, you know, uh, city uh, rules and regulations." I think that's fair. I mean, we're being true to our motivation why we're doing this, and there's no reason why we would object to that. So, I'm no lawyer, and we uh we we would have to uh find a I guess a real estate attorney. I'm not sure what kind of attorney and then engage with the city attorney and see if there's some language that that could satisfy the planning comm you know office and you guys. So I short answer is yes. We would like that opportunity to come back with with a solution.

Okay. In that way. Uh go ahead. Just a quick question. Agree with you. The only thing I was thinking I was worried is whenever attorneys get involved, they don't move quickly. And with Thanksgiving and Christmas, the question is, do you want to be tied to a 90-day time time frame, in which case we'd write it in or the other one is we just deny it, you get all your ducks in a row, come back and then gives us a diff different look at it because can't speak only for myself.

Oh. I don't know. [laughter] The question for me is uh I I I have had some experience in business with attorney. So I I I understand what you're saying. We know we know each other further. But I I I think I also have some uh clout with existing law firms. U maybe we could push for for some action, you know, but I I don't know. Is I'm I'm kind of throwing it back. Do do you have a preference which way we go? I mean, is is there an advantage to you or preference one way or the other?

I think the preference is the motion that we made because the motion was made. Well, that's okay. So, I I think I think Thank you. What? I'm sorry. I thought your mic was um I think we got your preference. Um I appreciate you answering that. We need to figure out what the heck we want to do and we'll do that right now and then we'll you'll hear it. So, thank you sir. Sorry.

No. So, one thing though and this is no matter if it happens later or now. One thing I would like to think through and this is why I think it would be better personally to deny it and give everyone a chance if this is something people want to move forward with is what we've only spoken about is if parcel I guess it's a with the barn is sold. What if they retain ownership of that and sell parcel B? So now parcel B is living right next door to a nonconforming or excuse me a living unit a dwelling unit that's a foot and a half from the property line and if it's rented out at the time and they're maintaining ownership of parcel A but now parcel B goes to somebody else. Now, it's parcel B's problem. The only option we spoke about was if if they were to sell the barn parcel, the new owner is required to demo it. What if the new owner doesn't want to? And I understand that would be written into the requirements, but it seems like there should be the same put back on.

Yeah, I these are good points. I personally think the market decides those and punishes things that are done like that. It just you won't sell for as much. So, I think it works itself out. But I It's a good point. So, I'm Why don't we just Let's make a vote and and let's just figure it out. So, you had a motion. Did Did the I don't think anyone second it. So, say it again. I didn't hear it. If you did, say it again. Yeah. I move that we find the project exempt from SQA and adopt PC resolution 2025-13 denying the appeal and upholding the zoning administrator's denial of DR07-24 and V0724. Second. Okay, let's just do a roll call. Uh, Commissioner Deorgio

I. Um, Commissioner Radnich I. Uh, Commissioner Mason I. I got nothing here. Yes. Vice Chair Deming I

Okay. Um, and I will vote I as well. So, uh, a motion is approved denying the application. Uh, you do have the ability to appeal. I would suggest based off what you've heard up here that perhaps other than appealing, you recraft and come back to staff with an idea that would work with what you heard up here. So, we could have done it either way. This just gives you a clean slate. Do whatever you want, but I think you heard where we were. So, that would be my recommendation. appreciate your time here. I think we [clears throat] all understand what you're trying to do. We just need to have things so that we can look to the next group and say we're not giving special privileges to these people that we're not giving to you. So,

thank you. and explaining my my my thoughts on that is we'd rather you take the time, get it right, and come back to us and then and not rush right after New Year's and come back and us have a whole bunch more questions or little things that are tied up because we are we are sympathetic to to trying to keep families together in these times.

Okay. Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to the next item. Thank you very much. Um because my family will get mad if I don't come home soon. Um so we are now at other business arc volunteer for two weeks from this Friday. Let me look. I haven't done this forever. Yeah. It's the 14th, right?

Oh, I'm gonna I'm out of town, actually.

Okay, thank you. Can I just please get an email? Um, I can do the 14th. If I could just please get a reminder on the 13th. We could put it on your calendar like tomorrow if that would be helpful. It will I'm getting back the night before. Yep. And I just don't want to forget. Yes. Thank you.

You better give her a text. All right. The next one is there's a meeting for December 1st following Thanksgiving holiday. There currently no items. Meeting will be cancelled. That's a great idea. Um chair and vice chair elections will occur at the next regular meeting. Really sweet. All right. Uh, any commissioners reports? Nope. I don't think we have any planning director's report. Nothing to report other than there was discussion. What one of the council members at the last council meeting which was robustly attended and I was acting city manager as the city manager and assistant city manager were both uh elsewhere um and not available. And so it was a robust discussion around Buckeye Fields and whether or not to remove well uh the PL the parks, trails, and recreation commission had uh voted to um I think abide by the fair play act and remove a pitcher mound and infield grass on one of the two fields. Um so that was essentially appealed or further discussed at the council and uh the same decision was the was the council's outcome. Um the in under other business, there was a a suggestion that maybe the council consider adding a requirement to its commissioners um that the chair actually um change annually or every other year because I guess in other commissions I would say um there's there's kind of a perennial chair or an ongoing one and and they feel like it may be good to um have a changing of the guard, but that that was not discussed robustly. That was kind of put out as an item for

further discussion. So, uh it sounds like we may be wrote moving to a new chair uh at the next meeting.

Question is, we haven't seen Kim Sturm and Commissioner Sturm in a long time now. I know it does we get fine without it, but it changes the rules for quorum. Uh the rules for quorum remain the same. Um she has I think missed the last two meetings because of conflicts and um I I think it's safe to convey convey everything's okay. Um it it just happens to um yes scheduling and and other complex. So I I believe uh she'll be at the next meeting if it uh if we have items to discuss. Oh, we we have the first item from tonight to discuss again. So, um we'll look forward to seeing her then.

Sol by nominator as president. [laughter] I don't know. All right. But I have nothing else to report. Thank I think with that we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.