Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

do appreciate that. That was a joke, sir. Um, all right. We will start tonight's meeting um with a roll call. First call the meeting to order. Uh roll call. Um Commissioner Deorgio present. Uh, Commissioner Mason, present. Commissioner Radnich, present. Vice Chair Deming, present. Chair Leange, present. Okay. If I can have a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I.

I. Motion carries. 5. Um, if we have any public comments that are not on tonight's agenda, um, this is now when we would hear those. So I will look to staff to see if we have any

no speakers in the room for items not on the agenda. And so if you are attending via Zoom online, if you would like to speak on an item within the purview of the planning commission but not on tonight's agenda, please raise your hand now. Seeing none. Okay. Um, [clears throat] so we have uh two items on the consent calendar. So I will ask if anyone has any modifications, comments or otherwise. Otherwise, if we can have a motion to adopt the night's consent calendar. I move that we adopt the consent calendar. Second. All in favor?

I. Motion carries 5. Um, we will can now go to um continued public hearing. So, we'll hear HD DP32-22CC and I'll turn it over to staff to present. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Um, no presentation tonight, but um at the November 3rd planning commission meeting, the PC considered the request for a variance and um variance for a garden shed and a lot line adjustment between 19 and 20 Spring Hill Lane. The commission reviewed the staff report, presentation, and public comments and directed staff to draft a resolution approving both the variance and the lot line adjustment subject to conditions. Um staff provided the draft resolution 202520 to um the staff report or to the agenda and to commissioners and recommends that the planning commission review the project, conduct a public hearing, find the project exempt from squa and if planning commission can make the required findings, it can adopt resolution 202520 approving the variance and approving the lot line adjustment subject to standard conditions. Thank you.

Thank you staff. Um any clarifying questions for staff? Okay. Um if the applicant would like to come up, they are welcome now to come up in five minutes. Just please turn on the microphone and introduce yourself. Thank you. Is it on? 10 10 minutes. Sorry. 10 minutes. 10 minutes. I need about 10 seconds. Sorry. Um I'm only here to answer questions. I made my presentation a month ago and nothing has really changed from that. Thank you.

Okay. Let me any any clarifying questions for the applicant? All right. Uh thank you. And then we'll just um let me see what do we have now. Um okay. Yeah. Thank you. Now, sorry. Now we'll open it to public comments. So I I see cards up there. So just anyone else who wants to comment who hasn't given a public card, please please fill one out, pass it to staff. And again, just go up there and turn it on, introduce yourself. It's helpful if you're a neighbor to kind of give some context besides address like I'm this way that way just to help us understand relative where you're from if you don't mind. Thank you. The first speaker is Debbie Lindis followed by Michael Hoffman. Is this on? Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. So, good evening. My name is Debbie Lindis. I live next door immediately to the east of the and north of part of the project of the uh projects at 19 and 20 Spring Hill Lane. Last month, city staff presented you with a report stating that the only reason for the requested lot line adjustment was to bring the parcel into compliance with LR5 zoning requirements. Sounds very benign and ministerial, right? Wrong. In reality, this application is an effort by the applicants actively abetted by city staff to retroactively whitewash illegal construction inside the setback immediately adjacent to my family's home. When the project architect submitted his application for this lot line adjustment in October 2024, he explicitly stated that the request was intended to remedy the structures non-compliance with

setbacks requirements. You've seen documents showing that of the approximately 93 LR5 lots in Lafayette, over 2/3 of them are under 5 acres. 20 are 1 acre or less. Did the city care in 2022 that the 19 Spring Hill lot was three acres in size? As they noted in the staff report at that time, no. Lot sizes of 1 to five acres are the norm for the LR5 lots in Lafayette. This false specious rationale for the lot line adjustment is a pretext fabricated after our complaint to this commission in April 2024 and subsequent litigation in July 2024 documenting the illegal construction. In the interest of time to keep to my three minutes, I won't restate what I said here last month and in written comments about the impact of this structure and of the other elements of this private amusement park on my family. I encourage you to ask Greg Wolf about our complaint from April 2024. You've said he didn't bring it to you. What has he done instead over the last year and a half? What was his role in crafting this retroactive workaround to remedy the illegal approval of the structure? Why has city staff left the structure in question entirely unmentioned from its two reports to you on this matter? Instead of approving this lot line adjustment as if it were a simple administrative fix and in so doing furthering city staff's efforts to cover up their illegal actions related to this project, I urge you to insist on a thorough investigation of the

circumstances that led to this application being presented to you in the first place. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the speaker? Thank you very much. I don't have any questions, but staff, is it possible to turn up the volume on this speaker? Thank you. Yes, the next speaker is Michael Hoffman.

Thank you. I also live adjacent to the construction bordered on two sides. Last time, uh, Commissioner Deorgio asked a basic straightforward question. Does this lot line adjustment violate prior conditions for approval? It's very straightforward. Yes or no. Did you get a straightforward answer? No. You got a whole convoluted explanation about what Mr. Wolf was thinking of. Now, Mr. Deming, you asked a question. Why is this report so light? Did you get an answer? No. Still not mentioned in this revised report. Your staff has never explained to you in writing what they did and why and whether that violates the conditions or not. Here's the basic fact. We wouldn't be here if it didn't violate the prior condition. There wouldn't be a lot line adjustment. That's a fact. None of you would be looking at this right now if this was compliant and hoham and move along and nothing to see here. We wouldn't be here. You know that's true. Now you might say, "Well, Mr. Wolf, gosh, he had discretion to just move this house 27 ft inside the setback." No, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how many papers the architect waves around. They're not worth anything. Only this commission can grant a variance. In fact, the DRC can't move that house inside the setback. They know it. They never got it. It was a condition for approval and they never had authority to do it and now they're violating that very condition under the guise of a lot line adjustment. You know it to be true. Now Mr. Leange, you sort of pose like, well, what happened if I went back in time and had this before me three years ago? That's not one of the criteria. You're

not allowed to do that. But if you could, you would have to look at this entire project, the whole amusement park, the tunnel, everything else. You can't make that call right now. You can't make that call right now. To our exclusion, there's no way you can make that call. And I would ask you with the same zeal, go back in time to April of 2024 and say, "What would I have done if I got this complaint from Mr. Wolf? Would I have acted on it?" Sure, you would have. with the same zeal that the city would enforce its laws. Of course, you would have. I'm I am begging you to please not engage in this selective after the fact cover up of the illegal actions of Mr. Wolf and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? Go ahead. Just just one question. This is this is I don't want to say tangential, but the discussion about the the the tunnel and everything else. My understanding or my assumption was that that was really a county issue that county permits have to do with tunnels. Is that the case?

No. It says so right in the hillside development section. I'm really glad you asked that. It says in order to approve this development, this staff has to make actual findings about the soil and erosion and drainage and seismic effect. The county has nothing to do with that. I defy them to identify the county code that says the county of Contracasta tells Lafayette whether or not this hillside is going to slide down into the neighbor's yard. They don't do that. They presented some papers as to whether the tunnel would cave in on the residents. That much happened. But in the last year and a half, I've been asking for this soil report. They don't have it. It's the fastest way to shut me up. Just produce the report. They don't have it. They didn't give it to the county. They still don't have it now and they certainly didn't give it to the city to review. So, it's never happened and the county has no role in that. And I'm just a lay person. I'm just a lay person. They know that. Thank you. Thank you. Um hold on. Uh do we So, we're going to go all the way through public comments and then and then applicant you'll get a chance to respond. Uh any more public comments? No more speaker slips for persons in the room, but if there is anyone online who would like to speak on this item, please go ahead and use the raise hand function now. Seeing none. Um, okay. Uh, so we will now close to public comment and then applicant you are welcome to come up and address anything you wish.

Too many falsehoods to list. fully permitted with every agency possible. The only thing we're trying to do is get a lot line adjustment. Uh I don't know what else to say. There's everything that was just stated is completely false and we'll work that out separately, but uh there was a lot of uh false statements made. The bottom line is the MAP Act entitles entitles us to do a lot adjustment. We're bringing it into compliance for the LR5. That's a fact. We're meeting all of our setback criteria. It's it's pretty straightforward. Thank you very much.

Any any clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you. Um with that, I will bring it back to the commission to discuss. If anyone has anything they want to discuss, now's a good time. So, I wanted to clarify because there's been a lot of items here. the lot line adjustment under 62408 or whatever it is. Um, as we closer after the fact, which I think I can find, I guess I want to clarify. I guess I should have probably went through it for staff. the approval would be permitted in the new if we do the lot line adjustment because a pool house that was originally a single family residential structure that was torn down that there was I guess I'm trying to make sure I get the order of operations right here single family structure torn down approval at that time was for a single family residential to go in its place correct

correct

okay what was con can Can you rephrase the in its place because I think it was roughly in the location of the existing structure which I believe was substandard with respect to setback. But if if the question is was there a single family residence on the property that was demolished? Yes. Were they building a new smaller single family residence on the property? Yes. Okay. And that original approval had plans, locations, etc. that were approved. And then at some point after the applicant said, "We'd like to move the location of this single family residential structure closer to the property line within the setback." Uh that was not known at the time. Th this property after the fact staff became me I became aware of the fact that this is a unique property on the street. It is not like every other property on the street which has front setbacks in the realm of 20 to 25 ft side in the realm of 10 15 uh feet. And so when the proposal was to move the the single family residence, the new one to 33 ft from the side property line, I believed that to be conforming and authorized the movement there too. Got it. Subsequently, we discovered that after it was built, there's a unique to this lot on this street 50-foot step back from all property lines. And so I think the applicant has stated, "We would like to

do the lot line revision in part to bring the substandard lot area up to the minimum that is required in the district. Staff will acknowledge other properties in the LR5 district may not be five acres and the majority of them might not be five acres. Nonetheless, the district calls for a minimum lot size of five acres, and I don't believe staff has identified anything which would uh force the city's hands to deny the applicant the ability to adjust the property line between two parcels they own, to deny them the ability to come up to the five acres on the smaller of the two parcels. Um, and that would also remedy the the setback issue at hand. And so I think there's confusion or at least uh statements regarding does it violate a condition of approval? Well, if the if what was previously approved is sacrosanct and can never be changed um arguably maybe but the to um increase the prop the the size of the property to a confforming. So the the question is does it create a nonconformity or does it conform in the after approved and after the lot line revision condition and so it's not creating a substandard condition with respect to setback. It's not creating the the lot line revision. It's not creating a substandard condition or violating a condition of approval um in making something uh substandard or worse. It's actually doing the opposite of that. It is

remedying two substandard aspects of the existing development. And I I the the with the city attorney's review and staff's review, we don't see how the city is positioned to deny a property owner's ability to try to remedy a nonconformity. And just to check because I had trouble finding it, uh, resolution 2022-9, which I guess I understand to be the initial approval. Um, does it did it require the construction of the single family resident within 60 or sorry, at 60 ft or greater from the property line? The initial approval,

I don't believe it's stipulated. I think it simply approved what was it what was proposed at the time. Got it.

Um, okay. And this is where I'm I'm I'm really trying to get into the weeds because it at least for me the important aspect of it. If we revise the lot line, what was ultimately constructed which is being referred to I believe as the pool house that's the building that is within the setback. Correct. And if we do the lot line revision, I assume as a requirement would that that pool house will then have to be designated a single family residential home and it's going the lot revision will capture another building that will then be referred to as an ADU or do I have that backwards that the pool house would be the ADU?

No, I think you have it correct. So the what is pool house now? single family residential and then the lot liner revision will capture another building that will be declared an ADU or is that backwards because last time I thought it was backwards was the pool house supposed to be declared an ADU I well but I I think it gives the opportunity for that I don't think it's capturing a physical one right now am I am I correct on that the existing

barn structure which is on the larger of the two parcels currently would be incorporated into the the parcel with the tiny home, the 450 some odd square foot. Uh most recently constructed dwelling unit. It is adjacent to a pool. So I guess you're considering that a pool house, but so yes, there would be two units on the subject property on the smaller of the two properties now. And if the lot line revision did not include the new barn structure, would the building next to the pool be in compliance after our approval?

What I guess I'm trying to get at is so I don't believe I don't believe it would it would it would continue to be substandard with respect to setback at 33 feet from the property line well in excess of other structures on the street. So the only way that the lot line revision would be in compliance with 62408C which is that it must be in compliance with zoning and sorry required res regulations is that the building that is next to the pool that is within the setback that was originally supposed to be the replacement single family residential is that would be viewed as an ADU which per the recent laws is what permitted within the setback. Is that my understanding? Then

could you re restate the question? Make sure. So the lot revision is would would be permitted. One of the requirements is that after the lot revision, the planning commission can find that the new zone or the new property is in compliance with zoning and such regulations. One of those is minimum setback. The only way for that building, the one next to the pool that is currently within the setback to be in compliance is if it's declared an ADU. And the only way for that to be declared an ADU is to have another brilling on the property that is the residence

under the current zoning. I would agree with you. They could also seek to be zoned like all the other properties on the street and in so doing bring it into conformance that way. But under the unique zoning sub that is subject to this one lot on the street. Uh yes.

So we would have to find that the new building would meet the Sorry, not the new building. I apologize. I'll just call the pool house and just because it's everyone knows what it means would only be a that pool house would have to meet the ADU requirements, right? Correct. And does it I there was mention that it might be too tall to be an ADU. I didn't know if that was correct or not. We believe it does comply. Okay. Sorry, I had a lot to clarify there.

Oh, it's it's complicated. Um, anyone else have comments?

I mean, all be So, for me, I went through it, looked at the regulations, I couldn't find the old resolution that was approved, but a requires it to be essentially closer to the new rule or closer to the requirements for the zoning. In my mind that is met, I think, because it's getting close. Yes, sure, there's a lot of other properties that are out of compliance. I don't believe in like sort of performance-based compliance or contractual law. Like, yes, there are currently zoned properties that do not meet the acreage requirements, but we do not have it within our power or capabilities to like force that to change. I think saying that there are other properties that are in compliance is not a to me at least personally not a good argument to not approve it. So I think on 2408A I think it meets it and B I think it meets it. C is where I get hung up and C is the one that requires it to say that if we permit this each of the new parcels is in compliance with zoning and the other requirements.

You're saying 248C.

Yeah. Okay. And which is ultimately the the question which listen I get intent is all over the place here but in my mind we don't necessarily consider intent if they're trying to utilize the law and procedures to sort of circumvent things to approve so long as the requirements are met in my mind I I would be happy to find make that finding regardless of what the intent is or the background and the history and all that um background history intent that can go to the courts where it belongs. Um for here the question in my mind then is if the lot line revision hap if we permit the lot line revision the new lot I believe it's 19 would have the barn which is then declared a single family residence and a new building um which is I guess would have to be declared an ADU in order for it to be permitted within the uh setback or alternatively demolished. And then the also the question obviously too of the initial resolution that was approved in 202219 did have plans that were approved and showed you went through the whole process and what was ultimately constructed did not match that. And so the question I guess like I'm not really sure how to address that here to be honest where I mean I I don't know if I can answer that. I'm going back to looking at the findings in front of us and I think that's really what we need to do. And so if you're saying that you have and by the way um any one of us could say they don't support the findings and that's why we vote. So I'm not going to tell you how to vote. But I I am going through the staff report and looking at each set of findings and saying can I support that I or can't I? And as of present I can. But that's neither here nor there. But I would like you to if you want to expand on C and you know in

looking at the actual findings there. This was something else. Oh, okay. Um, you know, let's talk it out. Maybe we can help each other understand it better. But that's that's that's what at the end of the day we have to do is look at these findings and say yes or no on each one. And if you can support them, you would arguably approve it. Pull up one second. While you're pulling that up, I can make all the findings. Okay. Um,

this is a very complex issue and whenever I get to a complex issue, I try to simplify it in generic terms as much as best I can. Did the original one go the way we would have liked to have seen it go? Obviously not. But when you're faced with the problem, best thing you can do is move forward. And I can find make the findings because I believe in my mind that this is the best way forward. I mean, given all the McMansions that we've approved, you know, staring down at their neighbors, you know, the Lord of the Manner type places. Um, given the size of the lot, these aren't overwhelming structures. If it was an ADU, instead of 33 feet from the property line, it could be five feet. You know, it could be uh there could be a lot more ownorous things that could be done. And that's why I think this is a a respectful attempt to create uh a solution and that's why I can support it.

Any comments, Commissioner? George, you know, I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

No, that's that's fine. Um I had been as as was mentioned in in both some of the um the letters, um I have I'm take a sit back. I appreciate the direction that this is going. I I believe that we could do the lot line revision and that would bring things into conformity and um if I'm using the right word and I support that whole process. The thing I have trouble with still is this whole issue of the one section and can you do a change when things in the past are out of conformity? Now we've been told by staff that things that's not an issue. I I still have problems with that and I'm not sure how to reconcile them, not only the letter, but testimony, everything else. Um, so I'm leaning I don't know if it's possible to to abstain from a vote or just vote no. Um, part of me wants to just let it go through with it and let it be battled out in court. I hate to say that. I mean, that's really kind of a, you know, pushing it down the pushing it down the road, but part of me is like, okay, there's good arguments both for both directions. You can say that are you looking to cure things and make it right and go forward like I've heard or should it be stopped in its tracks? Um, that's what I've been struggling with. So, yeah. So, I do understand where you're coming from and I do understand um that way of approaching it. For me, what I'm doing is I'm reading the findings we need to make and seeing if I can make

them independent of one person's testimony on what happened versus another's on what happened. And that's the way I'm looking at it personally of what's the information in front of us? what findings what do the findings say and can I make them? So, I don't know if that helps or doesn't help, but that's the approach I'm taking.

I I'll just add, you know, I I've been uh on uh the planning commission for six and a half almost seven years. We've had a few different instances where there have been private legal matters going on between both sides. It's hard to not feel for both sides because we like it when both sides go outside, shake hands, and everyone's happy. We all live in this town. We want to be here. It doesn't always happen. But we have to be I feel we have to be very careful. I'm I know we have lawyers up here. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to behave like a lawyer. I don't mean that in a bad way. Um I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer. that's what the courts, you know, and so there's a point there where we have to somewhat disassociate from that. And I know people in the audience don't want to hear that. Um, and I get it, but and we can't say, well, we're going to stop it while that works it out. That's a private matter. It will work itself out and then then the parties will have to adjudicate depending on what happens. For us, just what um Commissioner Radnich said and what I said earlier, I think we just need to go through the findings. Um, so that's where I am. So I am ready for a motion or we

what I I my lawyer hat um are previously sorry are previously approved plans I guess are they considered a condition of development that what is development developed matches the approved plans for example and the obvious reference I'm making here is the 229 had plans that showed a single family resident building built in a certain location 50 60 ft away within the setback. Ultimate was construction was not. Would that be considered a condition of development previously imposed by the city? That's uh was it 408 2408D and essentially saying if we approve this parcel with that pool house built where it's built that was not does not match the plans that were approved initially in the 2022 19 we would be essentially does that does that pool house having built where it's built built how it's built not matching the plans of the initial approval. Those plans were they considered a condition of development or essentially is like is it permitted under the rules that you can the the planning commission whoever it is approves a set of development plans for a project? And is there like a materiality threshold for like if something changes, do those plans still be considered to have been met or are they is it a condition of the plan commission's approval that these are the plans and this is what you will build and if you build something else you violate your conditions of development. You see what I'm saying? I do. So for as long as I've been here, the

the standard conditions of development are site the date of the approved plans. So we are the planning commission as an example or design review commission are approving the project based on the plans submitted on a given date or and approved on a given date. And so that is the expectation of the city is that what's represented on those plans is accurate and is what will be built. Those st same conditions also say unless you come to us before building it and get approval for any subsequent revisions because I can tell you it is common place for the initial design to by the time it is actually being constructed to be refined, revised. you it it is just I I would struggle to find a project that doesn't have some aspect of change. Um and so it it is incumbent on the applicant to come to us and show the proposed changes and we ask them to be called out to us. Um and so they did that. We approve them. So I I would that that is they followed the proper procedure as as far as um I think your question with respect to did they build what we we approved.

Yeah. Yes. And so giving the the contention

the approval they received would then change the conditions of the development essentially which totally understands and if there's a disagreement there obviously the courts are the correct place for that. totally understand that. And I guess my remaining point would be I mean I I think I can find to do it in so far as there is certainty that the new parcel would be in compliance with zoning and building ordinances which I can only find if the pool house can be declared an ADU and presumably I guess the barn declared a primary residence. Um and yeah I mean can can we find that or are we confident that those two structures can meet those two definitions?

I think we make it as part of the conditions of approval. I mean given the age of I mean the barn obviously will need to be brought up to code and re remodeled and stuff like that. Yeah.

And and to be clear for the record, the barn structure had from its initial design and construction an approved dwelling unit in it which is larger than the smaller unit which is adjacent to the pool and and thus the property would have two. The bigger one would be the primary. The smaller one would be the accessory. And that is permissible in all single family and rural and rural residential zoning districts in the city. So just to check it, the barn already is essentially a single family residential building. It is a dwelling unit. Yep. Okay. It's not like it has to. Okay. And then staff is 100% confident that the house meets the requirements. It's not in violation to be considered an ADU. It's not too tall or too big or too, you know, whatever. The the small structure, the dwelling unit adjacent to the pool complies with ADU requirements. Yeah, I think on those basises I think I can find in favor of it then and to the extent any of those assumptions I'm making are wrong that unfortunately the courts are the best avenue for it. But I think based on a consideration of the factors required for approval, the processes like the world as it exists today, applicant did things as they saw it correctly and whether anything else was done incorrectly or if the buildings are not in compliance with the different requirements would have to either, you know, I think yeah, the courts would have to be the way to hash it out, which is unfortunate, but

and I don't think we need to advise on that on this court. I mean, maybe daytime jobs, but for this board, let's just stick to what we Yeah. I mean, I know you're a lawyer and so you know more about not the not the kind that's helpful here. So, let's go back to our task at hand, and that's to vote on this. And to vote on it, we should be if it you need Oh, do we have to talk about the garden shed because isn't that because we didn't split them up as I recall. We're still united. Correct. That's part of this. Yeah, that's part of what we're um voting on tonight. And uh so if you have questions about it, bring it up.

I mean, I would just say that my reasoning for approving the garden shed is simply the fact that the neighbor is in favor of it and they would be the agrieved party and any future purchasers of the land would see it, know it. If it's something they don't like, they don't purchase it or price adjustment, etc. So that's my logic there. All right. So, I am willing to take a motion if anyone has I'll make a motion unless Commissioner Giorgio, is there anything else you want to talk about?

Okay. Um, I'll make a motion. I move that we adopt resolution 2025-20 approving the variance and approving the lot line adjustment subject to standard conditions. Second. Hold on. Just Oh, wait. Excuse me. staff.

Just an advisory to the commission before it votes. Uh staff's unaware of anything that would preclude a property owner from bringing an aspect of their property or development into conformance if it's currently non-conforming. And Commissioner Deorgio asked earlier, can you abstain? Yes, you may.

Yeah, I I didn't answer that. My personal opinion is if you're conflicted because of personal knowledge, definitely should be abstaining. I I would hope that we're up here. I mean, we're here to make decisions, but you do what you have to do, and I don't mean that derogatorily. Um, but I I I I hold abstaining for conflict of interest type. Thank you. I appreciate that. But do Yeah. No, I appreciate your I appreciate that description. All right. So, can we can we can I hear the motion again? I'm sorry. I just want to sure make sure I got it right.

Um, I'll just repeat the motion. It's the recommendation in the staff report that we adopt resolution 2025-20. Approve the project, excuse me, approving the variance and approving the lot line adjustment subject to standard conditions. In addition, what I didn't add before, uh, that we find the project exempt from SQA. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Okay, I'm going to do a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Mason, I. Commissioner Deorgio, no. Uh, Commissioner Radnich, I. Vice Chair Deming, I.

Chair Leange, I. So, that's four eyes and one no. Motion is approved. Uh, there is a 14-day appeal period. Thank you everyone on that one. With that, we will go to our next agenda item, which is 6B M S502-25. And I will turn this over to staff, please, to that. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, good evening, everyone. And tonight I will be presenting on this minor subdivision application for a property at 820 Okalanes Road.

For some site context, um this property is located in the western portion of the city. The property currently has one single family residence that was built in 2005. Um previously in 2019, the parcel was larger. it incorporated the northern parcel and in 2019 it was subdivided to this southern parcel. The site in its current condition is sloped um I would say it's sloped to the looking at the map to the souththeast and there are many mature trees that cover the parcel. What this project proposes is to subdivide the existing one parcel into two parcels. Parcel A, which is the parcel with the current single family home on it, would be 1.57 acres. Parcel B would be 0.97 acres. Um, I'll touch on this a little further, but just wanted to say that um, no development is proposed at this time, but any future development on the lot, the the proposed newly created lot would be subject to a phase one and phase 2 hillside development permit process. Phase one would go to the planning commission for consideration, phase two to the design review commission. Shown on the screen is a site plan showing the proposed split. Parcel A with the existing single family residence is shaded in blue. Parcel B shaded in yellow. On parcel B, it's showing the um kind of footprint and access of what development could look like on that lot. Parcel A, so the blue shaded parcel is accessed off of Aalan's Road. Parcel B, um, as shown on the

screen, proposes a future single family residence that is served by an access driveway off of Akalan's Road. So, the portion on Parcel B that's accessed is a um, if if you're familiar with Akalani's road, as the road curves, it starts to go up in elevation. So where parcel B access would would be proposed is at the kind of lowest part of that hill. As I mentioned earlier, no residential development is proposed as part of this minor subject sub sorry subdivision. Uh future development would require a phased hillside development permit as well as any related tree permits or grading permits as applicable. Um the proposed building pad on parcel B shows shown in this image demonstrates that um a variance is not necessary and future development um would adhere to the established R10 setbacks. The application was sent to our outside referral agencies for review. Those underlined on the screen are the agencies we received comments back from. Um she main comments sub of great substance were received from our city engineer and the Contraosta County Fire Protection District. Um I'll go into a little more detail on the next slide. Um but the comments and condition or comments from city engineer and fire protection district were incorporated into the conditions to ensure their compliance. Um and the applicant will be responsible for obtaining review and approal approval of permits from each applicable agency. We received no public comments um prior to publication of the staff report and um up to this meeting tonight. So going into the um kind of project specific conditions of approval that were included in the draft um resolution

as part of the staff report conditions G22 through G27 are comments from the city engineer regarding site distance. So site distance being um relating to the driveway access for parcel be coming off Aalanes ensuring that there is safe access for cars entering and exiting the driveway as well as cars that are traveling along Aalanes. Some of these conditions include um not putting any fences or any structures that would block any sort of visibility um from that driveway and from the street. Condition D1 for design is basically stating that any future development would be subject to the phased hillside development permits. Um this is outlined in our municipal code but included as a condition for any future developers. And then F5 is a specific fire district comment that captures the comments that we received from Confire um as part of this application. staff has reviewed the project against the um SQA exemptions and found it to be exempt under minor land divisions um and is able to make all the findings to recommend that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt resolution 2025-12 approving the project subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh any clarifying question for staff? uh less clarifying questions and more uh two comments. One, thank you for orienting everything to the north. I know we talked about that last time. Awesome. Um second slight suggestion is that to the extent feasible if there's like a parcel name like if you bring the map back up, you just have the parcel name like on the parcel it is because it threw me off for a bit why like parcel A. I thought the line was different. I really parcel B is you said shaded in yellow but like just like parcel B if you could flip it on the other side. Definitely that's it. Otherwise, so it it is on the left side, right?

Yes. Parcel B is Yes. The label I I believe the label is to fully show the condition of the proposed new parcel. Yeah. Oh, thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Uh if the applicant would like to come up and uh introduce themselves and tell us about the project, please. Hello Ariani. I'm applicant. I'm not the owner and happy to answer any question. That's all.

I didn't actually hear everything you said. I'm sorry. Could you just say it again? I think I got half of it. Is it better now? Yeah. All right. My name is Arya. Funny. I'm builder design builder in La Minda. I'm not the owner. I'm just the applicant here for this application. purely project management owner rep helping the owner. So happy to answer any question if if we have otherwise I don't have anything to say. All right and hold on for a sec. Any questions while he's up there? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Um All right. Now we'll open it for public comment. So if there are any public comments, we'll now hear those. We have one speaker slip submitted in the room from Agatha Sue Lee. Good evening. Thank you for hearing me out. My name is Agatha Sue Lee and I live at 847 Okalani Road with my husband Charles Lee and we are right across the street from 820 which is the existing building. We are in sight of excuse me we are in sight of 820 Aanis which is around the escurve bend going towards Arinda and we are across the street from 8:30 which is the existing building. So there has been some confusion in the neighborhood about these requests. We stood before you in 2020 and ask at that time that you look carefully at the building of the proposed spec building that was very narrowly situated between Okalani's road a bike path and the fact that it it was so narrow it is right above the stream bed and at that time your commission said it had to be set back. I did not think they made the setback what you approved. The stream bed is one area of

concern. It runs under the switchback of Aalani Road going south and that is blocked. There is a major lion slide that's coming out of Gloretta above down the path. You can see the debris under the road and through that stream bed. As it blocks, it comes under Okalani's road and backs up into our stream bed that goes a quarter of the mile up into Arinda. It is a vital part of keeping that area clean and running. So, we would really ask that you carefully look at approval of any existing driveway that did not take these factors in account. And one that we have that was approved by your hillside ordinance was the development would preserve open space and protect streams, stream beds, drainage, native ve vegetation and animal habitats. This is a major road for all the turkeys and deer that go up to the reservoir. The other is that development would reduce short and term long-term erosion, slides, and flooding and visual aspects. And I think I'm out of my time. I thank you for your really careful consideration of this particularly long-term and beautiful area. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Hold on a sec. Let's make sure. Any questions? Just uh really quickly uh most of those concerns are going to be raised up at the phase one uh when we start citing and getting more into bit. I'd recommend you uh just put all your thoughts down in in writing. They will have various consultants. It will be reviewed uh at the county level for the for the city with their staff, their engineers. And uh my typical response is whenever you have questions, ask that and they will make sure it's investigated. It may not be the answer you want, but at least you'll have the the comfort of my knowing that you asked the question, somebody uh did study it and made their own evaluation. And may I quickly say that the reason there has been no public comment as you noted is because this has been delayed for three times. The hearing has and that's why there's been no public comment.

Understood. Yeah. Any other questions? Questions? You have something else? Um I just want to clarify that the only thing we're doing today is the lot line or sorry prior comment. The only thing we're approving is new subdivision of the parcel. No building plans, no development plans. Like yes, it is likely in lie of development obviously, but today is just approving the subdivision, nothing else. Correct. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Um staff, while we're waiting for any other public comments, is it possible I normally would have it with me, but I unfortunately lost my device last week that has or I'll get it back, but I I'm glad you brought up that this would brought I I thought we had seen this one before. It was like bugging me until you said that. And I remember that one very distinctly. I think the two of us, the three of us were here. Um, the one thing I'm I want to what would would really like to see is is it possible to show the parcel that that previous development had proposed to put that house on next and just because I what I don't want to do is perjure the future by making a parcel that the only way it can be economically used is to do the house that we previously said no, you shouldn't do. So, I'd like I'd like some ability to see that. And if if you could like give you time to that would be helpful for me.

Yeah. Um and just for clarification, we're referring to the it was it was a two-phaseed hillside development permit on the northern lot because I believe that was the But there was a house down on the southern lot. That's what we that's what we ultimately did not approve. Oh, gotcha. Okay. I

was a white house that was right up on the road and you know when you look back on probably their property you know everything else I mean I don't want to this is just my memories of it. It was it was discussed at lengths in here but it was a while ago and I don't have it in front of me so I I can't remember but I want to make sure that the parcel that we're looking at here could basically sustain something that could possibly be approved by us. Otherwise, we're just setting it up for a big argument in the future. Yeah. Let me um I'll have to look into it on my computer. Um so, yeah. Do you know what any

and that was for the that was for a different parcel of land, but it was one adjacent to the north? I mean, it was this property. He was subdividing this property and putting a house down where the driveway is kind of hitting into somewhere. Oh, I see. I see. A little further. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. which which does look like it's a whole drainage area right there. Can I question the request? Let me let me do this first. I probably went out of order. We're in public comments right now. Okay. So, let's finish that up and then come back. I'm sorry. Do we have any more public comments? No additional public comments.

Okay, we'll close public comments and then uh if the applicant would like to come back up and then maybe for us up here, we could ask questions. Some of those are good for the applicant to answer too. Sure. And I can address your concern about having the building pad in the area close to the drainage. Um I I don't know. Anna, do you have any um Nicole, do you have any laser or something that I can show on the like a pointer? Like a pointer. Could you just go and point on the TV? No, I don't have a I can point. Yeah, I can. Yeah, we're right there. So basically,

and then return to the microphone so that the minute taker can capture what you're saying. So if if it's possible, you could just describe. Okay. Uh so the northwest portion of what's up on screen. Yeah, northwest. North being up

that was um that was proposed not within that yellow area on the on the white part because that was the separate parcel and that's a stream and drainage um that I agree that we shouldn't build this application. Um it was started with the SP9 L um homestead. So we already proposed some building path and building path is uh thank you. The building path is clearly shown on the yellow area and that building path has a good setback from the uh drainage and creek area. We had multiple site visit with the civil engineer and biologist just to make sure that everything has been protected. So I do believe that yellow parcel which is parcel B will have the building pad for the future development. That is not the topic here but that's to mitigate your concern.

Okay just so I'm clear. So I'm trying to get my bearing. So my memory when I look at the staff report and it has the little in insert and this is getting to a question shows could you put that page up please? It's the one that has a little insert because I I'm struggling with this visual to be honest. I want to make sure I'm seeing it right. Who? And it has the same thing. It just has the little map showing on it as well. And sorry, just to clarify, in in my staff report,

it's on the staff report, page one of of uh it's of the drawing set. Yeah. Oh, of the drawing set. 6B2 I called it. Thank you. Okay. Or 6B the second. Yeah. Right there. And could you zoom in a little on the the colored map? So, uh, okay. And so, maybe if you wouldn't mind, sir, and now you have a microphone. I sure

on the other one, you showed a driveway and a pad, but we're not approving a driveway or any of that, but maybe that was just for representative. Uh we are not we can the future applicant I believe they can change the driveway but this driveway uh we went through multiple try and error with the city engineer and civil engineer to to make sure that we have enough sight distance. So Alkalani's road um is 25 mile uh per hour but most of the car are driving faster. The code for the site distance for 25 miles is is 15 140 ft based on the city engineer request and or civil engineer. The reason that we put the driveway somewhere here because we wanted to get 200 ft distance not only meeting the requirement just go beyond that. Otherwise if you go back to the proposed driveway you will see the long driveway which is not necessary but just to be able to meet the um site distance. That's the purpose of putting that driveway. But again, future developer, I assume they can apply for another location.

Okay, let me I'm here's where I'm having trouble. So the blue line outline there and then the rest. So 820 and 8 Oh, wait. Was it Commissioner Radnich found the old wood? So, we're looking at Oh. Um, Radish, could you share the if you have the application number MS MS501-9? It was item 7A in December 7th, 2020. What property was that?

So, we we'll bring up on screen what Commissioner uh Radnich found. And so what I think you will see when we bring that up is the subject property of tonight's subdivision is outlined in blue and the property identified as 830 Okalanis Road was formerly part of this property owned by the same property owner and was subdivated subdivided off under that two 2019 subdivision. Zoom back out please.

That's correct. So that was cleaved off and is the subject of the new home which was built in the narrow strip between the creek and the road. And there were recently code enforcement issues because the there was sight distance uh comp being compromised by a newly constructed fence because the house is closer to the street because it had to go in that narrow area that was created by the creation of this lot. And so the property owner wanted to have some buffer and privacy, but that compromised public safety with respect to sight distance. And so at the time that the northern portion 830 was cleaved off under the former subdivision, the planning commission uh required the relinquishment of a butter's rights. Um so the the issue of where could you get safe ingress and egress from the northern parcel was discussed at length and there was concern that if that subsequently the driveway was proposed or you know was forced towards the west around that curve a little more that that was going to pose a public safety issue and so to abate uh or forestall any issue the the subdivision required relinquishment of butter's rights along that pro property line um with the exception of the where the driveway was approved by the planning commission that did not extend onto the property to the south but that has been a the reason that this has been continued as long as it has is because the city engineer has been highly concerned about the safety of the ingress and egress from this new yet another parcel being created and cleaved

off under this subdivision. So, if you've driven this road, it is steep and windy and um I don't have accident data on it, but but I it um I believe a lot of close calls happen and uh accidents. Um, but I'll leave that to the police and and transportation folks to deal with. And so that has been the the issue and the point of uh discussion between the city engineer and the applicant is where could you get safe ingress egress on the western portion of this yet new parcel? Um because the current ingress egress point uh the property owner has said is is I don't think the word dangerous was used. I think it was like challenging um currently at the at the curve. Um so that's been the nature of it. And so that's a little bit of the background on on where we are. But the I think the city engineer is um at this stage I think in your report materials you'll see that he is minimally satisfied um and and has placed project specific conditions on this to try to address this concern and not have future issues.

This location showing in not here but the one that shows the access point. Okay. That one right there. Yeah. Okay. But that would all have because we're not approving that. This is just this is just representative of what could happen. Correct. It's to it's to ensure that if the commission does approve the subdivision that the site is a buildable lot, something this could be technically built. Okay.

Correct. And just as you did with the last subdivision, leaving off a portion where ingress egress was a concern, you could similarly condition this one to the driveway being at that location as shown on this plan and the relinquishment of a butter's rights along the the rest of it to to put that issue that and I believe the um relinquishment of a butters right is a um a project specific condition added by the city engineer. here. It's already in there. Yes. Okay. So, we don't need to. Correct.

Excuse me. Which condition number? Just so I could read it. Give me one second.

I Thank you. I think you could go ahead and sit down. I think we're good. If we Thank you. Sorry about that. We're we're right about to come bring out it back to us which we've already kind of done but go ahead and sit down so we can um but yeah just for the benefit of those of you who weren't here I mean now that clarifies that that was a separate part of it. Um it's uh oh sorry uh G26 I'll read it out loud. Prior to filing the final map um parcel map, the developer shall record an easement to allow for a six foot wide pathway along the front edge of the property along Okalan Road similar to the existing 4 to 5 foot wide pedestrian path across the front edge of the property.

But would that lock it to that location?

No. What I was cur curious about is because you're just talking about the walkway and how that works with um fortified walkway, how that works with a with a no fence, you know, would uh if somebody decides that, hey, those metal barriers isn't enough. Can I put a 42 inch high guard rail there or or some something something else? I'd like to be, you know, maybe a little bit more specific because [snorts] it's tough people going through there and kids on bikes and stuff like that. So I think your concern would be addressed by the city engineer and and that if and when a pathway were to be built, there would be adequate protections from vehicles traveling on the roadway to separate the vehicle travel, errant vehicle travel from the the pedestrian way.

Correct. But where I was going at is once you say no fences, that may preclude certain options and it's it's safety both ways. Safety for the pedestrian, safety for people coming out of the the driveway. And um I'm not sure what I want it how I I'm not sure if I'm wording it correctly. I don't obviously you're not going to put a standard 6ft tall wood fence.

Correct. I don't think that would satisfy the the the goal of protecting the pedestrian from a errant vehicle. A a guard rail would, but that would be a low element and not obstruct the sight distance the way a solid six-foot. So, I think those two can both be accommodated.

Okay. Um, and I think the city engineer has considered that. And uh one thing for the applicant uh I'd recommend you go through all the previous history, see what kind of comments the neighbors had because we spent I one of the particular comments that came up was the story polls were in the wrong place up against for the previous one up the little ways down the bank of the creek which of course got everybody paranoid and reality the story polls just were off by six feet. Okay. So, just pointing that out so we can avoid some wasted discussions in the future.

Thank you. So, just to clarify, we are in planning commission discussion which we were doing. So, I just want to make it clear. Um, so go ahead. Yes. I just want to uh Commissioner Mason condition of approval G27. I think this is where you were reading the no fence. Yeah. But it it says no fence, landscaping, or other improvements may be constructed that would restrict the sight distance from the driveway on par. So I think it's based on conversation. I'm comfortable with the condition. Okay. Okay. All right. Any questions, comments?

I It's just a subdivision for me. So it's and not having the background is it seems like a subdivision that is meeting the requirements. Yeah. Yeah. The only thing Yeah.

And and I I referenced the earlier subdivision the similar ingress egress site distance concern and the relinquishment of of butter's rights. I don't think G26 as currently worded does address that. And so we would recommend a separate condition which relinquishes the abuter's rights except for that area as shown in this exhibit um where the the driveway would be. Yeah, I agree. I think because this is going to come back to us some point and we've seen subdivisions come back different because they can. But if we think that's the right place and the city engineer said it is, let's just codify it now and not deal have to deal with it again later. That's my suggestion. Um I'm ready for a motion. Anyone's ready?

Unless we have more comments. Did you Wait, did did you want to add a condition? Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, yeah. So basically, we're saying that that is where the driveway would be. And I I'm not super familiar with the butter's rights, but we're basically stripping away everything else but that one spot as the only place that the driveway could be. Is that is that how what a butter's rights are basically doing effectively? Yeah. So I mean, I think I'd rather Sorry.

Um in layman's terms, you know, a a property that abuts a street has presumed rights to access that street. And so the relinquishment of a they're known as a butter's rights. And so relinquishment of that give affirmatively terminates those presumed rights along a portion uh designated portion of a property line abuing a public right of way. And so in so doing, you can um limit and and be certain where you can and cannot access the the public right of way from a given parcel. And generally it is in my experience, it's only been related to the the public safety and speeds and sight distances. Do we need to specify a driveway width if we're going to create a but rate this? Uh it it's advisable to to say from the northern property line, the vertex, a 20ft distance, and from there on you would and so they would have adequate space to put in a 16 foot wide driveway that would satisfy uh any ingress or access requirements by emergency apparatus, etc.

Thank you. Um Sure. Um, can I ask staff, would it be appropriate, staff, if in our motion regarding the condition of approval, if we were to add one in our motion to have the driveway, could we reference uh for staff right now that the driveway would be as per the plan set dated 1 to 2025 and then also in addition uh relinquish the uh a butters a butters right? Yes. Would that be appropriate? But just just for the access point. I mean, we're not just designing this, just the access point. Yeah. For the future. And can I question of the Wait, hold on.

It's it's it's related to your what you're said you're posing. Yeah. Go ahead. She was talking. I'm so sorry. Mr. I I just I'm trying to understand why we are going to this detail versus the design review commission. Well, this this isn't I mean, I'll answer why I think because we've been to this project before and we dealt with something and if this is a chance to say, "Hey, look, we know this is a tough area because this is a very steep road." Yeah. Why? We all know that and if this if the city engineer has already said this is the right spot, I don't want to second guess them.

So, hold on. Sorry. So, um, you know, all because otherwise I mean we could just say, "Hey, let's just not forget this when it comes back. If it changes, we'll hear them out and go through that." Um, and we could do that, too. But I would be okay with that, but I'm not going to die on the sword for it either. Um, I mean, my understanding was that it's not this is the city engineer didn't appine that this is the best location. It's just an acceptable one, right? it is acceptable and I believe it is the optimal. I think that it was through this iterative conversation, discussion and proving out of the the I mean I guess I'm access that that this is the optimal um it's it's the best. Yep. So I in discussions with the city engineer, I think that he would concur that it it can only get worse by being relocated elsewhere.

Can I uh open up for the applicant to talk is that because I'd like to hear what they want to say. They might help us somehow. Sir, come up and tell us what you want. And if it pleases the commission, I'm happy to to ring the city engineer to see if he if if I'm correctly restating his findings. Yeah, I mean, if we could do that, that'd be great because if he says this is the best spot or the safest spot, I I'd just like to note it. Happy to do that. You know, someone could always So, let Why don't we wait for a second or can we go ahead with this? Yeah. All right, sir. Thank you.

Sure. Um so no issue with having only that access as a approved one. City engineer also mentioned another location which is closer to the existing driveway on the main house as an option but the owner prefer that one. So my point is there might be couple of other location I'm not the future developer or builder and they can have that option I believe is not a bad idea and always we can go back to this uh this driveway that's you know like we have couple of option on this property

all right thank you well I think we'll see what the if if there's any ambiguity from the city engineer I assume we're just going to not deal with this issue and go just stick with what's going on but if so thank you let's just wait till we back. I guess my preference is that I don't see a reason to put a limitation on the development when it's not what we're approving today. We're just doing the lot line. And I get that it like it is a chance, but we also have a chance when we do the next one. Yeah. I don't know. I hear you. If they come up, you know, share the driveway or build a bridge or what, you know, who knows? I don't know.

If this were a flat road, I would be like, let's leave it alone. I totally agree. uh just because we had so much trouble on the last one. I'm I'm prejudiced on this one and that's not to the applicant. It was a different person. But uh yeah, I just Yeah, let's just see what they say. I I can go either way because we will have a second chance whatever happen. But it is, you know, we've been here long enough, some of us, where we see these lot line adjustments come back for the real houses. And then recently we had one next to one that was finally built. So it actually built, you know, and you see you get to see it long enough. And luckily I don't think I've seen any that we really

lose. Yeah. I guess I just like generally speaking I'd rather like oh we discuss this when there's an actual plan of like this is where we want the house and here's this and this because otherwise it's like we're putting a pretty big restriction on. We do. This is just a special case. Yeah. because it would also signal to the applicant like this is such a severe safety concern that figure out what you want but put the driveway right there, you know, so it might save him money. But let's hear what drum roll, please. The city engineer affirmed uh where it is shown on the plan is the optimal location for the driveway.

Okay. And then if if we were to condition that, the applicant could come back and ask for a variance which could be heard in the future. Right. Okay. And I'm just asking that for clarity. So I am infor that. But we're going to all have to get to some level of consensus. All right. Well then I'm sorry my microphone was off. I'm I'm okay with a proposed amendment. Yeah. So maybe uh if we get an a uh someone propose an amendment with that in there or however you want. I I would hear it Gary because next I'll be the new Gary.

And so just to clarify, if you know the drainage issue comes up and it turns out the driveway there though it'd be best for safety is actually worse for a plethora of other reasons. Are we precluding ourselves at the next development phase when the plans come in from changing it ourselves? Well, I mean, I think the applicant would do that because they would have the engineered design and they would come back ask for a variance and then we would take that in consideration and I think we would hopefully be pragmatic in our decision. I didn't know like can we contradict ourselves in the future and be like, you know what, we actually want to make you put it somewhere else.

I I think if there was compelling reason to say why it should be and it would probably have to come down to safety first, I think we could all make a decision that counters what we've done today.

Okay. And and to answer your question, uh these issues have been duly considered by staff and our recommendation is to relinquish the abs rights. Um they the process can be undone. It's just more difficult. And so this isn't just kind of guidance. This is restricting the location which if for some previously unforeseen reason were to need to move and could somehow satisfy the the safety and sight distance requirements. It could be move it could be they could be reinstated but um it just is more involved and I think it raises the bar for doing so.

Okay.

All right. Let's hear it. Um, okay. I'm make a motion. Before I make the motion, I would like to say I do appreciate um the public comments on this item and always we encourage the applicant to consider public comment and uh communicate with neighbors. So with that, um I would like to make a motion that we uh find the project exempt from SQA and adopt resolution 2025-12 approving the project subject to conditions with an added condition that the driveway um be required to be located as it's shown in figure A-1.1. both dated and revised of January 2nd, 2025 in addition to relinquishing a butter's rights.

And friendly, just just so I'm clear that but it's just the access point, not the whole driveway. Oh, excuse me. Yes, I said driveway. I meant to say access point. Thank you. Staff, is that good enough if we vote on that? Like the clarity of that motion for us? It is. It is clear enough we'll mimic the condition which from the prior subdivision which was S10. Okay. So is do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay. I'm going to do a roll call vote. Uh Commissioner Deorgio I. Uh Commissioner Radnich I. Commissioner Mason I. Vice Chair Deming I. And Chair Leanch I. Okay. That motion approve 50.

There is a 14-day appeal period. And there's a 14-day appeal period. Thank you. All right, I think we are down to our last agenda item. So, this is 6C um V05-25. And I'll turn it over to staff again, Nicole. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. I'll give it a second. There it is. All right. Um so the final application I will be presenting on tonight is a variance application um V525 um at 3295 Fairhome Court. for some context of this parcel um located on the screen. This is in the kind of northeast portion of Lafayette um at the end of a culde-sac of a private court which is accessed off of release valley road. Shown on screen is a site plan of the parcel in its entirety. there is an existing single family home and the subject of the variance is a um as referred during the staff report we call it a a pergola structure. Um so some brief history of this pergola structure. Um it was there on the property when the current property owners bought the property. Um according to that uh property owners it's existed for 30 plus years. Um but in recent years more than 50% of the pergola structure was reconstructed. Um [clears throat] and so hence the um requirement for a variance to comply with the zoning standards. I'll go into more detail on further slides, but um in its I'm going to call it its previous condition, there were overhangs of the structure that overhung over the adjacent property. To the which

we're looking on screen, it would be to the right. So to the west, as part of the reconstruction, that overhang was removed. As part of this reconstruction though the posts uh stayed in the same place and the size of the pergola structure as it um exists is 298 square ft and the um sorry the request for the variances and encroach um request to encroach into the side and the rear yard setbacks. So looking in more detail on the slide just to orient ourselves. On the left is a zoomed kind of in of um the pergola with its before condition and after condition. Um on the right is a kind of section of you know the relationship of the posts and eve to the property line which has a masonry wall on it. So looking to the left in the diagram, what's shown dashed in red is the kind of roof overhang roof area of what previously existed and I've dashed it in red on the right hand figure. And then what is shown on the left dashed in blue is its current condition. So that roof eve had been removed. So it no longer overhangs that masonry wall. In both the before and after condition, it's 1 ft 4 in from the sideyard setback. Um whereas in the our 20 zoning district, um it's required to be 15 ft from the rear and 15 ft from the sideard. I believe in my staff report I misreerenced um an aggregate of 25 for the sideyard setback for for the R20

zoning district an aggregate sideyard of 35 ft minimum 15. So to reiterate in the R20 district the required setbacks are 15 from the rear 15 from the side. The pergola in its condition is 1 point or 1 ft 4 in from the side and um approximately 5'8 in from the rear. So what's shown on screen is a sight section to kind of demonstrate the um impacts that the pergola would have. Um in the figure in the top right I've kind of included an arrow to kind of orient ourselves. So, you know, if place yourself kind of to the I'm going to call it the souththeast. And so, you're looking kind of you're looking north and you're seeing what's going on east west across the property. Um, so the pergola is closest to a um an ADU that's on 3291, which is the property directly adjacent to the east. And this figure kind of demonstrates the the encroachment um into the setback and distance to that shared masonry wall. In looking at um a variance, as we've seen in previous applications, you know, you are bound to the uh findings for a variance. And for this property in particular, staff finds that there is no um size, shape, or topography or unusual circumstance that would limit the placement of a um a structure on this property to comply with the zoning district standards. On this slide now, we have the longitudinal site section. So placing yourself on the kind of west side of the

parcel looking to the east. Um and so we're kind of seeing what the parcel looks like north south oriented. Um so there is staff find sufficient distance between the pergola structure and the home to the south as to not have any kind of undue privacy impacts. Um the applicant has indicated that this structure is used um for their family for by the pool. um to provide shade for their family using the pool. Um but in looking at the findings um the reconstruction that occurred on this pergola does not justify relief from the R20 zoning standards. So this project was sent to our outside referral agencies and received comments back from central sanitation. There is a um a sewer easement across the um I'm going to call it the southern property line. So along the rear and central sanitation just stipulated that um no development should occur on their easement without their permission. Um the the pergola structure as shown in the plans would not um encroach into that easement. We also received two public comments before publication of the staff report. Um, one was from the neighbor at 3291 Fair Home Court, which is the property to the east, um, with the single family home in ADU on it and a letter signed by neighbors in the vicinity in support of the proposed variance. And after publication of the staff report, um, public comment was received. It was put on the agenda and shared with commissioners prior to this meeting. staff has evaluated the project against the required findings for a variance um and could not make the project or the

variance findings and recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt resolution 202515 denying the project. Thank you. Thank you staff. Uh Nicole, any clarifying questions? Uh was the per is there a permit history? Was the pergola ever installed with a permit? From records received by the applicant, um believe they could not find record of a permit for the pergola structure. So either way, if the permit the pergola is going to have to stand, it has to be res uh uh it will have to be permitted. Correct.

Thank you. And what what's the history of the site wall? Was that as part of the lot development? Um, that's a good question and I would I would probably yield to that um property owner to answer that. But um I think my understanding is that it had existed for a long time. It sustained some damage from trees um and is partially um kind of in that condition needs to be uh reconstructed. But I I don't think I could answer how long that wall has. Well, the reason why I'm asking that is as detailed, the footing extends into both properties, which means there has to be a recorded some sort of recorded easement or permission to access that. And what I didn't want to do is if it's an old wall and the footing needs to extend uh jeopardize one property versus the other, especially if one is because I've got an ADU just off the property on one side and a pergola just off the property on the other side. Both have foundations, both would impact the wall or the wall would impact them. So that's why I'm I'm I'm just concerned about that. But thank you.

Yeah. No, thank you for bringing that up. Okay. I just had a question. So, if if if it hadn't been rebuilt and the neighbors weren't would we ever be even seeing this? I mean, there's a lots of things that aren't conforming, right? This is something non-conforming that but the fact that it's being rebuilt now we have to say look, it's not conforming, so we're not going to allow you to do that. Is that basically it?

Correct. So there many structures historically because controls were not what they are today, property values weren't what they were today were were built and are substandard in some respect um dimensionally set back let's say um our municipal code allows those structures to persist indefinitely. They can be maintained. they can get routine maintenance and repair and and live on in perpetuity. Uh however, once the structure is demolished, then you are obliged when you're building new to uh meet the the current requirements. And that that is what the property owner failed to do. They they just chose to rebuild it where it formerly was. And um that's not a provision in the MUN code that things that were built uh substandard setbacks decades ago can be rebuilt in their current locations just fully demolished and and reconstructed.

Thank you. And just to clarify because that was a little trouble. Old structure completely demolished. New structure is like partially built right now. That's correct. Okay. So, if we do not grant this variance, presumably the outcome is they have to demolish what has been put into place. That is an option or they could appeal the decision.

Correct. Also, yeah, but Okay. Okay. Any other clarifying? Thank you, staff. Uh if the applicant would like to please come up and tell us Do you mind coming up here and just

All right. Well, let's How about this? Let's have First, we want to have the applicant come up and present. We'll ask questions. Then when we get through that, then we'll go to public comment. And any public comment, yourself included, that's when you'll co. So, so if you're okay, I'd like to just keep it in our normal format. If you want to go up as the applicant or if you, you know, that's between you guys. Okay. Why don't you give some of those? Do a public card and give those to staff because I think staff has a Do we still have a way of showing that like showing stuff? Yeah, we we have a document projector in the meeting room here. We can also bring up on screen the any exhibits that have previously been submitted to us.

Okay, great. So, let's let's go back to the applicant, please, if you would. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Sorry I'm a little under the weather. Got the kids coming back for Thanksgiving and they left some gifts. [gasps] Uh my name is Alex Kolski. I live with my family at 3295 Fair Home Court in Lafayette. We have a flag lot that has three easements on it. So, I'll read to you. Um, the west side of our lot has a 10-ft drainage easement. I think it's shown. It's actually a creek. So, there's actually additional requirements and setbacks for that. Um, which puts the anything that we want to put up literally within 5 ft of the pool. So, there's there's nowhere to go there. On the south side of the lot, there's a 5- foot sewer easement, and there's nowhere to build because it squished between the property line and the pool. There's nothing we can do there. Uh on the north side, we have another drainage easement that all the Fair Home Court neighbors benefit from. All the drainage water goes through there. So, again, we've got more setback. Our lot has a long driveway through the flag. So we don't have that's basically driveway. Can't build anything there. Um so in this situation we have a pergola. It's used different names. We've, you know, we've renovated our home in 2018, pulled permits. We renovated our pool, pulled permits.

We have uh fire department that we work with for our front gate bold permits. The situation here is that the pergolin its historic location had a tree not suddenly but over time grow into it with large vines. The whole trunk was sitting on it. We don't we don't know why it was. Um there's a lot of photographs for this. We have an arburst report as well. So when we realized the extent of the damage, we weren't left with much of a choice. We had to choose between safety or going through this process. And actually at the time we were told there was a 3ft sideyard setback. I guess maybe that's changed. I don't know. Uh we've been at this for a few years for a multitude of reasons. One of them being that we've tried to work with our neighbors to ensure they're okay with it. Ask them what issues they have. One of the things as the tree was sitting on the pergola and growing there. The arborist told us that as the wind would blow, it would move this pergola side to side. It would act like a battering ram on our masonry wall that's shared between us and our other neighbor. That wall is leaning at about eight degrees. It's got cracks. It's leaning, twisting, and like a wave up top, which makes sense because you just had something hitting it for not one, not two, but possibly decades and nobody knew about it. So, it's kind of like a cancer. Once it gets in there, it grows. The vines will lift up tiles, water gets in there, and next thing you know, you got nothing left. So, our requirements to rebuild this

happened suddenly. We weren't planning on removing it, but we didn't have much of a choice. Um, given that our lot is, even though on paper it's 22,000 square ft, we're taxed on all sides. There's nowhere else we can put this. further. As you can see in the reports, the pergola between our the lot line and our stairs, we can't move it further. So, we've already reduced it from 363 ft down to 298 ft. So, we made it smaller. So, we wouldn't have debris going over to our neighbor's yard. Um, moving it forward is not possible. We have a pool and additional stairs from the house. So there there really isn't much of a choice for us. The updated pergola keeps the same massing, the same height, the same location that was that it was since the '7s. We don't know why there's no records for it. It had a concrete roof tile just like our home. It was built around the same time. You'll see aerial photographs throughout history. I think the aerial starting around the 80s. It's there. You'll also see a lot of trees that were growing. In some of the photos, there's literally looks like the dark forests with as much trees as there. So, we didn't cause the damage over time. It happened. We just had to deal with the ramifications. And we're still dealing with the ramifications of the wall. We don't know if we're going to have a problem with our foundation because there's a retaining wall and it's it's shifted. Our neighbor built an ADU. They excavated. We didn't have any

issues with the ADU. Build away. No problem. But we did have an issue with grading drainage and dealing with this wall because according to multiple experts, it needs to go. We can't put a terrace on it or a trellis on it. So, we don't have actual privacy. So, we've got some issues. And if we remove the pergola, you can see the pool, you can see our jacuzzi, and you can look in my daughter's window. Oh, no. I'd want to do that, but okay. Um, so we're left with a request to you. we have a variance whether we kept the property as is or what we're going through now. We still have to permit it and we want to go through the full process to ensure one it's permitted. Two, it's done properly. We've talked to the building department, we've talked to the fire department and they've given us guidance on these items and we believe we've committed to those and happy to do it further. But as we were told by the planning department, the first step is here. We need a variance. There's nothing we can, you know, we can do further. Um, so I appreciate your time and consideration and hopefully you see that our situation is not something we caused. It's something we're the hand the cards we were dealt and this is what we need to deal with and moving forward. We like to do it properly. And we're happy to show lots of photos, arburous report, what a tree reports, whatever you need.

Thank you. Hold on. Let me just see if we have any clarifying questions. Mhm. Any cler Mason, could you talk about the wall a little bit more? How tall is it? Does it retain? Are you Is your lot low or high relative to the adjacent lot with the AD?

Actually, that's a great question. Um the wall, the pergola was always in the same location about 18 inches from the wall. It had 4x4 uh posts that were holding up I don't know, I'm told 4,000 lbs that if you pushed with a finger would would move. So very dangerous and you know, not a good idea to have that way. You can see it here. Um you can see the tree. You can there's other pictures with even more growth. Now, did our neighbors do that on purpose? I don't think so. I think it just happened over time. Um, it could have been done differently. You can see the wall height. It's around 5 ft on our side. Their level is lower. They have since raised it by several feet. Now, we asked them for a drainage report. We asked them for soils report. That was at the recommendation of the city engineer. uh we haven't received any. We don't know why, but it's okay. I guess there's a reason for it. Um and also an engineering report, we said, look, you know, if you're going to build an ADU, make sure that this is you're not going to cause any issues. There's construction, there's 22 peers put in. I don't know why you'd put in 22 peers for a 1,200T ADU, but they vibrate. They they cause movement. Further, you'll see all the trees in these pictures. They're not there. But there is a lot of trees removed which could cause soil movement which could cause destabilization. I think our pergola actually holds everything in place for us. Um the wall does it need to be addressed? We think so, but our neighbors don't want to and they don't think it does. So I guess we have a difference of opinion and that's okay.

But I think it's important that for the future that it gets addressed for us. It reduces our property value. It increases our liability and risk. And we've got four kids. The wall is not going to fall on us. It's going to fall on them. But then they'll sue us. And so we're like, "All right, I got to pay for college for four kids, and here I am dealing with lawsuits." Uh, yes, it does. Just so you know why I'm asking is this is one of the things I do. Yeah. If you look at just even without masonry, if a block falls five feet and lands on kid playing the ground, that's a life safety hazard. So that's where my interest is.

Well, we agree with that. Um I'm happy to share letters that tell us the wall is safe and there's no need to change it from our neighbors. our concern and we've tried three times to have it removed. Um not because we don't like the wall but because we're worried about it. Um further

let me just I and I appreciate this. I want to be careful because you you were here earlier so you heard some of the earlier discussions. You know we you know I've been in your boat. I've had situations with neighbors with like stuff and it's just it sucks sometimes. I I feel for you, but we can't get in the middle of that stuff. What we can do is go by, you know, uh, design, standards, planning, code, and and what we're actually, you know, reviewing tonight. So, we have specific things that we are discussing tonight. And so, I just want to be clear that that's the that's the lens we have to look through. I got you.

And when I hear this, I'm I go, gosh, I wish I don't know if the neighbors are in here. If they are, maybe they'll get up and say what their piece on it, but we we're not we're not the judges of how neighbors act to each other. That's I'm just I didn't want to go there. I'm just answering the questions that were posed to. Yeah. Yeah. So, I just want to make that clear. So, I think we've I had no intent on going there. No, I I appreciate it. I I think we asked Hold on. You got a question, too? Okay. We have one more question for you. Sorry. Two more. Um want to clarify a few things because the reporting on it wasn't Maybe I'm missing it. Um it looked like So what is the current status today of the pergola? What is it? Is it standing?

It's not overhanging. Is it It's not Is it still cuz the photos are shows it various different things. It's not overhanging. It's the posts have been put up. It doesn't have a roof and it doesn't have a back wall. And that really is going to be guided by the fire department what they want done there. We had we stopped any construction when we learned there was an issue with it. Okay. And was that this notice of violation from 2023? Correct. Got it. Yeah. And then commissioner Yeah. Just to clarify, um I think if I'm if I got this right, you you moved in in 2018, correct? Right.

And that pergolo was pre-existing then, right? Correct. And then um the neighbor in a letter to us today said that the pergola was replaced in September 2023. Um is is that true or is this the same didn't make sense to me the time? It's the same burglar, right? It is. We didn't realize the ex We had focused on renovating our home. Mhm. renovating the yard and the pool, which history of permits for all of that.

We've got four kids, a lot of activities. We blink and four months go by. Um, we've been when we send a letter to the neighbors, we've tried to talk to them in person, they don't want to. Uh, we've sent letters, we've tried attorneys, we've tried talking it, it does, it seems like they just want to communicate through their attorney. And when I brought this issue up, this issue started in 2018 and 19. Um, we're like, there's something wrong here. But we didn't realize the extent until we started digging in. It's sort of like unless you do invasive work, you're not going to know how far the cancer has grown, how how many of the issues had arisen. And at that point, it was bad. And I think that's kind of where we end up here. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Got it.

Okay. Um and I'm sorry, one last question. Oh, sorry. Yeah, just to clarify, um as you noted, you have experience doing various works and things and dealing with commissions and the demolition and partial reconstruction. Were there any did you go through any processes for that? the vendor you chose to do it. Was it selfdone?

It was uh a handyman. And in the attempt to repair the structure, literally I was out of town. He's like, "I'm not leaving this thing up. It's got to come down." And here I am dealing with it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yeah.

Do you need any of the photos? Uh I I don't know that we do. So I just say just keep them for now. If we do, we'll call. Okay. Um so um so we're going to now open it up to public comments. And I think staff already has cards. So we do have multiple speaker slips submitted. I understand Shaunie Brown would like to seed her three minutes to William Halliger. Is that accurate? Miss Brown. Okay. So, you're seating your three minutes to Mr. Halliger. Thank you. Mr. Haliger, you're up for six up to six minutes. You will be followed by Adam Gilbert. Thank you. My name is Bill Hallaggher. Uh I live at 3291 Fair Home Court, the neighbor in this case, uh with my wife Shaunie. Uh we're here to address the variance request that Alex uh Kovaleansky and Christina's wife have made to you. Um we're the only neighbors impacted by this variance request. uh but we are substantially impacted and do not support the request. We hope you'll take away five points here. The structure in question was completely replaced. Completely replaced in September of 2023 without a permit and without any oversight by building inspectors. Code violation would not [clears throat] have been caught at that point. A code enforcement officer found the structure in violation in October 2023, and two years of stonewalling by our neighbors has basically finally gotten us here tonight.

A new structure was built 16 in off the property boundary, as you've heard, inside the 15t setback required by an R20 zoning, and this was without our consent. The new structure exceeds the 120 ft accessory structure size limit. Its footprint measures 205 square ft. The application fails to the the original application failed to mention that. It was brought out by staff tonight. Appreciate that you brought that up. It seems to us that the Kianskys have engaged in a campaign of misrepresentation with the city, with our neighbors, and with us since recognizing that they would actually need to address the issue. Kovanskies tore down the existing pool shed in 2023. It overhung our property and apparently was never permitted. We were surprised to see a new structure arise in its place. The new structure was built in September of 2023. The staff report indicates there was no permit issued for the construction and therefore it seems there was no building inspection oversight on the construction. We built a fully permitted pergola on our deck in 2023, same year. Contraosta County Engineering required us to upgrade the post anchors, things that hold the post to the ground. The Kensky's anchors are the type that were disallowed by the engineer. the footings that hold those anchors have been poured already and are now safely out of sight. There's no way of going back and verifying that these uh these footings were correctly built. All of this raises the question whether the Kiansky structure would satisfy building code and engineering review. Code enforcement issued a notice to comply and a notice violation in 2023. And these these notices, as best we can tell, were ignored by the Kianskis until a new code enforcement officer was uh

hired and restarted the process and gave them time to put together the application for variance. The application is before you more than two years after the original notices. The setback violation speaks for itself, I think, and is addressed in our letter. Uh the staff report uh refers to more than half the structure having been rebuilt and that it quote retains several structural posts. This may be what they're told, but in fact the entire structure was removed and replaced with new footings and an entirely new frame. The new structure should not be considered grandfathered in. We have pictures documenting this that should be attached to your packet and we can show if desired. The overhang on our property was removed. However, now the entire roof slopes towards our property. It used to be uh a a two-way sloping roof and now all of it comes to us. Um potentially creating drainage issues and damage to the block wall's footing along the property val boundary. By the way, the block wall leans at five degrees. I've measured it repeatedly. There has been no change in the last three years in that lean. And that's the same lean that the leaning tower of Pisa has. We don't believe there's a there's an issue there. The structures size violation is speaks for itself. Uh the Kianics have pointed out that they don't have any other place to put it. There's some room along the back fence, but then that would violate the bishop's uh our neighbors uh uh uh rights um and and set back. Um, a more practical solution would be to locate it just north of the the pool. You can see an area there um that that's opened up and it's about the size of the um of the uh uh the what we call the lean to over

on the right there. So, yeah, it does seem that there are possibilities. Um, but I think another thing to try to get across here is the m misrepresentations that have been made. They've claimed that the existing shed needed to be replaced due to structural damage caused by quote the neighbor's tree due to their negligence. That would be our negligence. This is nonsense. We cleared the vines and small diameter scrub trees against the overhanging shed roof at our expense in 2018. If you refer to the photos taken in 2020 on page six of their application, there's no sign of crushing or buckling of the structure referred to in the application. Nor is there any sign of the alleged damage cited in the variance letter that the Kovianskies persuaded our neighbors to sign. The letter signed by our neighbors is not dated and all of the signatures appear on the same sheet suggesting that it was solicited doortodoor with initial signatures appearing to normalize the request for those who signed later. We're on good terms with our neighbors and have made no attempt to recruit them to our point of view. Is that three minutes or six?

Six, but you have 30 seconds to wrap up. 30 seconds to wrap up. Okay. Um, the location of the ADU is incorrect and they had plenty of time to fix that. We want you to understand why we're pushing the our objection. The unpermitted construction and willful disregard of city codes and viol violation notices must not get your endorsement. It sets bad precedent for our neighbors neighborhood and our city. The structure does not seem built to code. And finally, both Christina and Alex have made their displeasure with us very apparent. We've had we've ignored other provocations, but we're not going to be bullied in this one. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Uh, any questions for the speaker? Um [clears throat] it I'm I'm I I understand your your what you've said about the permitting process, but can you I I'm not quite clear on you said it this structure impacts you. Um other than so the wall is stable and the and the it's short now of the wall. Um I don't know lattice work along the top of the wall. Yes. Um neither of us can see over the right over the right the wall.

So what am I what am I missing in terms of the impacts to your property from that structure being there.

U there's a well here's a picture. Um the the gray tarp you see there covers the structure. There is a roof on it. It hasn't been uh shingled but there there is a roof on it. And it's a full-on roof. This is not a a you know beam kind of construction. Um the rain when it's shed will be shed um presumably onto or or potentially even in a storm over the wall. Um another point is that um we don't believe this is to code at all. And uh we think the uh the chance of it coming over now is as great as it was back when they claimed there was damage to the structure. I don't think the the previous structure uh had any more was at any more risk. And I don't want that structure in a in a storm or in an earthquake coming down on the wall and and and knocking it over. Remember the wall leans towards us, not towards them.

Do you have a comment question? Oh, okay. Anyone else? All right. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. The next speaker is Adam Gilbert. Good evening. Um I'm Adam Gilbert. We live at 3290 Fair Home Court. So just right above Alex and Christina on the on the photo there. Uh and we've been uh in the neighborhood for about 18 years. And during our time in the neighborhood, there have been a lot of improvements in the neighborhood. pretty much every property adjoining ours or near ours has gone through some extensive renovation if not a full rebuild. Um, and you know, within reason as homeowners, we feel, my wife and I, Wendy, feel like we should have the ability to make improvements to our properties. And as a result, we've been supportive of each of these projects. Some of them quite major, some of them smaller. Um, really without any exception. Um, in the case of this case before you, Wendy and I do support the requested variance. Um, I mean, I think to begin with, having seen the prior iteration of the of the pergola, it was pretty clearly unsafe and falling over. Um, and I think the current project, should it be completed, will result in a substantially safer structure, substantially more useful to the to the owner, substantially more aesthetically pleasing. Um, and I'm also moved by the fact that Alex shared with you previously that, you know, their property is constrained by a series of easements. both the creek that runs along the um the left side of this image that gives us an easement as well as the adjoining lot line that we share where we have a drainage easement for the benefit of the folks on our court for the heavy rains and that really does restrict our collective ability and and

Alex and Christina's ability in terms of where they could put this and it seems to me that there I recognize there are rules on the books that say hey you can't replace something if it breaks an ease if it breaks a setback if it's old. But what other incentive would there be for a homeowner to replace or take something down that's unsafe if not if if you didn't have the ability to have a variance uh request approved. Otherwise, I think the, you know, as homeowners, we would allow things that were decrepit to to persist. And it seems to me it's the best thing for the neighborhood and for the owners to just have a safer structure for everybody. So, with all that in mind, it seems like a reasonable request for variance. We support it and I appreciate the opportunity to share our voice. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you, sir.

Um, any other The last speaker card we have in the room is Robin Strandberg. I'm old enough to remember like when we were kids and they would write on those things and we try and focus them. Um, so good evening. Um, thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm Robin Strandberg and I rented this house for four years. Um, from 2015 to 2019, I lived in their house and um during that time the owners, Alex um and his family approached me about a serious safety concern at the rear of their joining property. This is 2018. They approached me. Um, we walked to the back and saw a large tree on my rented property whose limbs was bearing directly on the shared concrete wall and pergola. Two substantial ivy trunks 2 to 3 in in diame diameter had grown up that tree extended along a major branch and then across onto their existing pergola. I would like you to understand and realize that every time a strong wind blew, the top of the tree hit the wall

and hit their pergola. And Alex came to me in 2018 begging for us to do something about it. I immediately contacted the pro property management company that represented this rental and asked them to notify the the owners and to address the tree limb and the ivy. The management company set sent landscapers who weed whacked the ground ivy, only the ground ivy, but they did not remove the tree limb and they did not remove the ivy that was growing up the tree. I was just looking at a a text message in 2018 and it said they they won't go on ladders and they won't climb trees. They'll only they're only landscapers and they would only cut something on the ground. When he asked if I could hire a private crew to cut the tree and remove the the ivy, I was told I could not because the tree was not my property and my responsibility and I could be in vi violation of my lease. The tree, the limb, and the ivy on my rented property doing damage to my neighbors. There was nothing done ever. Over time, this neglected limb and IV caused damage, which was not the fault of these people asking for the variance. Um when they hired a contractor to repair this pergola, my understanding is that the contractor determined it become so structurally compromised because of the ivy growing up underneath the tiles that it was in the in the process of collapsing. This occurred on a Friday and the contractor stated that he needed to take the structure down for legal life safety because he was afraid of the four children.

Um I did bring um a copy of a leave behind of precedent in Lafayette. Um, Lafayette president for re rebuilding after damage cites that the city of Lafayette s allows buildings containing non-conforming uses to be repaired or rebuilt when damaged by fire, collapse, explosion, or act of God up to a defined repair threshold. The policy recognizes that non-conforming structures may be restored when the damage is not the result of deliberate action of the owner of the pergola. This supports a path for restoring long-standing structures impacted by outside forces consistent with public safety and modern code compliance.

Ma'am, and thank you. Let me just I'm going to ask you a question. I just wanted to stop you because we have to keep it close. What was that? What were you reading? Tell me this the the the the name of the code or you were just reading from. Um it's it from my research it was rebuilding after damage and it talked primarily about but I mean it was from LA I what I'm trying to find was this like do you find this on Lafayette? Where'd you find it? So I had three examples. Um one was for um Danville. Um one was contraoster in general and this was uh Lafayette president. It was based on heritage trees and acts of God um wind and um Okay.

Anyway, no, thank you. All right. Uh any questions for the uh speaker? I have I have a a copy of it. Hold on a second. Let me just I just want to make sure there's not other questions first. Any other questions? Less of a question, just I think more of a clarification. Well, hold on. Let's Okay. Let's do clarifications later if you have a question. Any fur? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. If you want to give us something, that's fine. Yeah, just why don't you give it up to staff? Actually, the photos were presented throughout your speaking.

I know during Are those your photos? Yeah. Yeah, we we went through They were flipping through them as you spoke, ma'am. Yep. So, I'm gonna if you can why don't you give that to staff, please, and then we're going to move on to the next speaker. Thank you. We have no additional speaker slips in the room and no attendees online. Okay. Uh then we will close public comments and then

Yeah. And then applicant if you that's after public comments I believe. Am I wrong? Am I forgetting this? Close public comments and bring Wait. Uh, anyways, applicant, go ahead and come back up. [laughter] The applicant has up to five minutes to rebut any public comments made during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Yeah. First, thank you again. Um, in terms of rebuttal, um, you've heard from a tenant that lived there prior to my getting the house. Those trees were there. They were growing. My neighbor has owned the house since 1998. So, this has been an ongoing development that's happened over time. Whether they knew about it or not, it's irrelevant. It happened. It damaged the property and it put me where I am today. Um, there was a couple statements that the the owner had brought up. I looked at their application. This is their application for an ADU. It's very simple. It doesn't say there is a masonry wall there. It doesn't talk about anything. So, it's hard for me to put things into documentation when I can't get access to it. Um, you'll see the photo there. That's the huge amount of growth that's caused us grief. And honestly, we have PTSD because of the growth there. We have continued issues. If it was just one item, like, I'm sorry, let's deal with this. Great. But it's been an ongoing thing. So, we don't know what to make of it. We don't want to assume anything. But right now, we're we're trying to build a structure that impacts our neighbor less, is stronger, is smaller in the same location, same massing. It's we're doing what we supposed to do. It's just maybe we've done it in the wrong

process and we apologize for that. But if we had to choose between safety and doing this and maybe doing it backwards, well, here we are. We chose safety. Um, thank you. I have a question for you. This picture, this is your house is to the right. I'm I think you're looking That's your property. The walls kind of the divider. That's the pergola down there. All that ivy the That's I'm a little because what I guess when the ADU came in all that went away all the trees. Yeah. All the ivy.

All that all that's all that ivy's from stuff on the other side of the wall. Not mine. Okay. And then and is is the pergola is it set down? It's set down in a lower elevation. Okay. Like on the back of the house there. Okay. Correct. There are five steps that lead down. So when I said I don't have a lot of Can you put up the Pardon me? Do you have the view of this now without all the vegetation? I'd just be curious to see how much vegetation has been all of it. I mean I believe in fact you can use the letter from the my neighbors. They they sent us photos where they increased

the Oh yeah. Yeah, everything's been removed.

Okay. All right. Let me see if anyone else um anyone else has I just I have You want to go first? I mean, I'm just going to offer to everybody that we're discussing the new pergola the and whether it can be permitted where it's currently located. Correct. everything that happened previously is contentious as it is and then honestly the destruction of the old one while probably should be permitted and done safely etc. Um that's not really at issue here the issue is really okay the new structure can it be built where it's being built and that's it. Okay. In my mind at least. Yeah.

I I just was curious is is the pergola structure is that also a is that a barbecue area? Is there g is there electricity or gas in that in that little area? Is it just a play area? It's a covered patio. There's there's no gas. There's no like It used to have electricity, water. It doesn't have any of that.

Now, our neighbor said that we could move it. You can see in this photo that there's a creek back there. That creek causes us effectively a five pushing the the distance where we can build anything within five feet of the pool. So there is no other place unless we build it in the middle of our driveway to have it. And then it's not very useful in the middle of the driveway. So we're compromised on three sides by easements and setbacks that we don't have control over. And now we're compromised on the fourth side as well. Okay. Exactly.

I just asked the people in the audience if you would just keep your comments so we can focus on this. Um have you examined this is for Yes. Okay. On the southern side of your house, it appears there's a wall there, a block wall. Um but then space etc before the north edge of your pool. Um putting it there in that location. Can you point to it with the pointer? I don't have a pointer. I'm not sure I'm tall enough. We'll try. Higher up. Right. So, do you see the creek now?

Actually, I'm having trouble locating the creek. It seems like it's on the western side of the property, which is noted, but I don't see the setback reflecting. You see the green uh line? Yep. There's that's where it is. I actually have my So, I can point this out and I have my survey as well. This might make it easier. Go ahead.

I can I was able to find on the various provisions the sewer easement, a 10 foot drainage and sewer easement. I could not see anything demarcating the creek prohibitions. That's what I did. I Why can't I put it there? And he's saying it's can't because it's creek. Thank you. Okay. So asked and answered. Well, no, because he said that there's a creek. Do you see the the rolling line by the pool? There's a dotted line. That's the creek easement per uh human surveyor uh the city surveyor. That's

on the top right. Yep. But that was that's not the location I was asking about. That that is the location you were asking about. You were you were asking like right where the finger is. Move the finger right there but closer to the building. No. Yeah. That rolling line right there is a creek right there. So you cannot build on that liner over but to the slight left of it where to the slight left right there um that is actually the house. No I understand and the stairs there's not enough space to to do that there

and when we we talked to the pool builders one they don't want anything with metal within five or six feet per code. Number one. Number two, they may have to structurally modify the pool tighter to add post there. We looked into various options and you know there just isn't any. There's there's two sets of stairs. So, we're compromising safety and egress for our family. We have easements setbacks. So, this lot is very compromised. Yeah. Okay. Um, any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you for answering those. Appreciate it. Okay. Vice Chair Deming, just to confirm, up on the screen is a aerial image of the property roughly as it currently exists. Um, and you're you pointed to the area between the house and the pool where there's currently paving uh squares and chase what appear to be chase lounges just this side of the of the planter. Thank you. So, one thing that's probably hard to see the there's a there's a wall there and it starts at the back of the chase lounges. So that area is actually very small. Okay. Thank you sir.

Thank you. All right. [clears throat] Now we are going to bring this back to um the commission to discuss um the one thing. Oh this may go on for a while. Can we take a five minute break? Yeah. Okay. Five minute break. Thanks.

I can wait. No, I think you're you're welcome to reconvene. I think Nicole will be here momentarily. All right. We are now reconvene. We were um discussing amongst ourselves. Um so if anyone has anything they want to discuss please just generally or are we done with rebuttal and yeah no um about this project and how you feel I I have comments but I'm going to wait till you guys go and then I'm going to say

I guess I I I had a clarification question from staff. The one public commenter noted certain rebuilding rights let's say that might exist to impact this where it's destroyed by you know act of god etc. Is there familiarity with what was being discussed? Is that relevant here? Is it irrelevant? Unclear. Uh there is familiarity. We do not our analysis finds that this does not qualify for that provision which would allow reconstruction. I didn't hear what you said. Who who doesn't allow uh our analysis? Oh, our

is that the structure being completely removed does not qualify for the uh provision that was quoted by the public speaker. And just to clarify, that's because

uh it's partly two functions. it it is a convoluted section and happy to go through it uh at some future date but um functionally uh it's because they removed the structure. Uh it's not to say it wasn't damaged. We will stipulate that it was damaged over you know however many years um but it was still standing and may not have been safe but it was still standing. Um and that there is a act of god 50% valuation threshold so that the um value of the new work does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure before the act of God essentially. Yeah. Um, so it it's a very hard test to satisfy and and uh I think the applicant uh has reviewed that section of the MUN code and is not claiming uh

okay

the the the the right to do that. Um so our analysis is it doesn't qualify for that and thus have advised the property owner over the last two plus years that the remedy for removing the structure and rebuilding it with the substandard setback and it being identified and and tagged by code enforcement is to remove it. move it or apply for variance and the the staff is unable to make the findings for variance. I know that the property owner has represented that there is a creek on the property which is constraining development. I don't think visually you can identify that from the aerial imagery here and the city engineer who has reviewed this would have flagged a creek setback um impinging on the development footprint. So if there is it is not significant I I would say and and so um it's simply a function of choosing to rebuild it with a substandard setback versus uh not having it or or relocating it.

That was going to be my followup I guess then is that do we know because it's not on any of the maps I'd seen like is there legally a restriction on them with this creek easement? Yes or no? And it seems like we don't know the answer to that, but probably no. I I can review the map that he submitted. It seems like it's on the property, but is functionally coincident with the 5 foot setback from the property line or the 15T setback. So like the the what you heard testimony today was that there the property is encumbered by a easement to the for the sanitary district. Yeah. And that's reflected on

we'll stipulate that it's also coincident with the 5 foot or 15 foot setback from the property line for a structure. So it it doesn't further encumber the property. it it yields the same developable footprint. And one one less clarifying point that I just want to make sure I'm 100% on.

Um presumably if it was a primary residence or maybe an ADU, I'm not sure, but like absent those things, if you have a structure that you demolish, is there any sort of like right to rebuild it on the property? You know what I'm trying to get to is like is there special consideration given to say that they have the right to rebuild it and if this is the only viable location you know what I'm saying there there's no vested right

okay so I mean are we doing internal discuss like that's kind of how I'm landed on it is

well just to clarify how I look at it is if it wasn't permitted to be there in the first place, they can't come back and later claim a vested right. So I think that all that is, you know, I don't think we ever want to go down the road and say, "Hey, any struck." Now, if it was built before the codes in 1956, that's kind of maybe grandfa that's different. But somebody comes in built something and we tell them to tear it down. I said, "Well, I already built it, so I can rebuild it." Um I from my own standpoint I was waiting to hear somebody say that hey you know we need a permit if we reduce it cut it in half 50% just a lot smaller would that be okay that could move it away from the property lines you know keep the front there uh but yeah

Mr. Could you use the microphone just for the benefit of all? No, I was waiting for somebody to say that, hey, if we cut it in half, made it half as deep and move it away from the property line. Other suggestions, it was almost given to us as a fate deal flee, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. [clears throat]

Yeah, I'm conflicted. When we started, I was completely on board that, you know, shouldn't have been there before, it shouldn't be there now. It it it it really seems like to me it was burdened by a a neighbor's tree and or vines or whatever. And had that not been the issue, it it wouldn't have been taken down. It wouldn't have been rebuilt. There would be no code violation. It was an existing structure. So, that's the part where I'm getting a little tricked up. Have thought on that. Tell me. You can trim whatever you want on your own side. Yeah. Yeah.

And if it was if it was an unpermitted structure, that's a code violation in and of itself, whether it was falling down or not. If you were to build big huge pergola in your backyard without pulling a permit or going through the city and your neighbor complained, you'd be kind of in the same position. Bill, I've got some neighbors I need to talk to that

Oh, the bill whether you can trim tree or not is a whole section of law. It's great. Um I am on board as well that the original structure shouldn't have been there. it was and eventually it came down up to that point like hey it it happened it's probably safer without that compromised structure there the question really is the new structure can it be built where it's being currently built and to do that needs to get a variance looking at the requirements is there special circumstances of the property itself it doesn't appear to me no that certainly trying to have a covered shade ated thing of that size next to a pool next to this. Yes, but that's not what the section 6-214 findings for variance ask us to consider. It says the property itself, which I don't find. Um, special privilege. We've certainly granted variances. We just the garden shed recently tonight and plenty of other times. And generally for me, it's like if the neighbors are okay with it, doesn't seem like it's going to create a long-term health here. the neighbors are unfortunately clearly not okay with it. Um, I don't think I can find that the property owner meets the requirements for the findings of a variance as stated in the law. And I think there's potentially other places it could be located, but again, that's not something we're asked to consider. [clears throat] I don't disagree with you. I'm thinking what if they changed it into an ADU then they could put it 5t off and that's that to me is just like it's just making silliness out of all of this. Um

so anyways I will entertain a motion at any time. I don't know that I'm going to get anywhere that feels good one way or the other. I mean, I agree. I don't think there's a or maybe do other people have like clear conviction that they can or cannot make the findings and the findings would be for denial. Can you make the findings? I'm I'm struggling a little. Not not I should say I'm struggling emotionally, not necessarily with the findings. So maybe that's the answer.

I'd just say I'm agreeing with you. I think it's really unfortunate that that it got to this point um in terms of like impacting the neighbors and stuff. I don't see it as that much of an impact and and I figured like the runoff off of the pergola could easily be solved with with a gutter, a simple gutter. Um I think you guys working out is one issue. it's our our having to to follow the rules is a separate issue and um I I'm afraid I just I I can't really find a reason to have a variance.

Yeah, I sorry. Are you done? I think this one is it's hard and I think it's frustrating and I can understand both sides. Um I agree with you chair that if this was an ADU fine it could be built there. So like in that sense emotionally it is hard but what we are tasked with is I'm just trying to look at this black and white of the findings and yes for this size and yes it was reduced but that's because the overhang was chopped off that wasn't on their property for this size of a pergola. Yes, this seems to be one location. I agree. We didn't hear any other options or sizes, but I think that's because they came in here for the variance, right? Yes. Would I have loved to see if this rectangle could fit somewhere else on the patio? Yes, I would have. And for the applicant who's already spent a lot of money doing, you know, what appears to be, you know, a nice land hardcaping, I do understand that now because of that, at this stage, they're restricted. However, we're charged with making findings and um not easy, but I not easy emotionally, but I do agree with staff's recommendation ultimately.

Actually, we can't s Sorry, sir. We've already gone through the public comment. We've gone through applicant and response and rebuttal. So, sorry. We're It's this part. we vote and then um either way either party has the option to appeal. So that's to both of you. Um so if you have further wherever it goes that is a remedy for either party. Hey, could you show me on there the 15 foot setback? I'm I just don't see it. Is it just right in front of me and I can't see it? I I don't believe it's dimensioned on this site. I was trying to think if you did because it's 15 feet on that. It's 15 feet on the bottom, right? And then it's 15 feet on the left side. Correct.

So I I would I mean 20 feet on the left side. 15 and for an aggregate of 35. So it have to be 15 and 20. But yes, this could be a 15. Could you maybe Yeah, I can try

your best architectural skills and take a wild ass because you know it it I'm looking at it as the you know through the lens of is there you know when we talk about properties that have big slope issues and you can only build here you know we make wide variances for them. Um but if you put 15 15 and 20 I don't even know if that pool's 15 feet off. I can't quite tell you but it's already there so we're not debating that. Um, and just for the benefit of the commission and the and the public, pools being essentially flat structures in in the topography of the of the yard area can extend all the way to the property line is my understanding, provided that they are properly properly engineered, right?

Um, and similarly, a sixoot fence could go out to the property line. It's only um structures essentially taller and bigger than that, buildings. Um and there was mention of if this were an ADU, it could be there. No, it it would still violate the setback even for the reduced setbacks afforded to accessory dwelling units because it's not 5t off. It's not four feet off. Yeah, four feet is the four feet off and it could be an ADU. Correct. Okay. Yep. So, and so a pergola ADU could be built feed off that wall.

An ADU could be built or feed off of that wall. Um, if it's I I will say that just because it's attached to an ADU does not afford any additional structure the the um reduced setbacks afforded to ADUs. It has to be the ADU itself. Yeah. Um, is there any way you anyone could venture what 15, 15, and 20 looks on that? I mean, you can take a look just because one of them has some Yeah,

it was it was actually the neighbors thing where they put like 16 and 1/2 ft, nine and a half feet like you can see there. So, you can kind of It's a basically a little more than the width probably somewhere around here. Okay. So, if you did that then you did that the the I mean it's taking up Okay. Wow. Holy smokes.

Yeah, I I would really hesitate to do this accurately or even semiacurately in the moment. I think if that is the the applicant's contention that they're constrained that that would clearly be part of their demonstration and and application to the commission. Okay. Yeah. I can show. So I I can't dimension it but there is a a a scale bar in the plan. So one inch on the plans is 20 feet on the ground. Oh, there it is. Yeah. Okay. So it's about that.

Yeah. A little a little greater than the width of the quasi built shed. You have to double it over. I mean, the way I look at it, it's like the line is going all the way out past that word concrete and it's going at that angle of the the property line and then from the bottom it's going if I use this scale on the side 15 there, then that's going almost to the top of the pool. So, it's almost going to the top of the pool. So really all that's left is that little white spot right between the pool and the house. Yeah, that's what I was pointing to earlier, right?

That's why I pointed to it. But I mean this this goes to the point of and it's in the this goes to the you know that's the findings for the right. Yeah. Well, the the thing is as far as I read that is that the constraints to consider are not the buildings that exist on the property, but rather the topography of it, its location, its size, its width. Um, and as much as I hate to say it because I'm looking at building one myself, so I have a massive amount of sympathy for this, you don't really have a like you don't have an existing right to rebuild a structure that was itself would not have been approved in the first place if there wasn't an existing structure.

It sucks, but anyone wants to do a motion, I'm definitely ready to hear it. Uh, I I'll make a motion to adopt the staff's recommendation. Um, finding the project is from SQA and adopt resolution 2025-15 denying the requested variance. Second. All right. Um, roll call to uh um Commissioner Uh, Giorgio I. And just for clarity, I is

denying. Denying. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Radnich. I, Mr. Mason. I, Vice Chair Demine. I, man. You don't have to be the D.

Yeah, I I I can't I can't fault what this is saying, so I'm going to go I as well. So, the motion is approved denying the variance. You have a 14-day appeal period. And thank you. I'm sorry. All right, we're moving on to the next item. Um, uh, we have no new public hearings. We'll take those for the record. You can leave them with us. Okay, got to go. Um, uh, Ark volunteer Friday the 12th.

I can do it. Uh, let me see if I can. I haven't done it in a while. Let me do it. I haven't done it in a while. Sure.

So that's me. So you can put me down for art volunteer on the 12th. It's still 9:30. Okay. And then the next item is Uh, where's the next? Okay. Commissioner's report. Anyone? Nope. Okay. Planning director's report.

Um, I shared with the commission earlier today, but will report out and and share with the public that uh unfortunately Commissioner Sturm has submitted her resignation letter and so will no longer be serving on the pling commission. I do want to thank her for uh 15 years of volunteer service to the city on um both the transportation and circulation commission and then the planning commission for the last eight years I believe um and chairing us through some of the very difficult times during the pandemic early on when we were transitioning. And so, um, her expertise in in architecture and just, I think her critical thinking skills and her just friendly and understanding demeanor, um, it's been much appreciated by staff and I think her fellow commissioners. So, I'll leave it there.

We will miss her. Definitely will miss her. That's all I had. Uh, that's it. Ajourn. Thank you.