Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The town of Lascatos Planning Commission meeting of January 14th, 2026 is now called to order. I will now call the role. Commissioners, please state here when your name is called. Commissioner Bernett here. Commissioner Mayor here. Vice Chair Burch here. Commissioner Barnett here. Commissioner Stump here. And Commissioner Sordy here. Um I we just want to welcome Commissioner Mayor back to the planning commission. He served um a little bit ago, so we're very happy to have you back. Thank you. Happy to be back. Good. And it's nice to have seven of us. So um please stand if you are able as Zoe leads us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice for all.

As the planning commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage active participation by the public, which is essential to the work of the commission. The public can participate in several ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to staff. During the meeting, there are two opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal communications period, an individual may speak on any topic that is not on the agenda. Second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. You will be advised of the times when to speak on each of these items. If you wish to address the commission tonight during the verbal communications portion or a public hearing agenda item, please raise your hand on Zoom or for those here in person, complete a speaker card and give it to a staff member. When you are called to speak, please come up to the podium and speak directly into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded. You will have three minutes to speak. We will now begin with verbal communications. Verbal comm the verbal communication portion of the meeting is the me dur is the part where members of the public are invited to address the commission on any issues not on the agenda for tonight's meeting. You will have three minutes to speak. Staff will announce when your three limit time or when your three minute time limit is up and we will have so please raise your hand on Zoom if you would like to speak during verbal communications. I have one speaker card and it is for Gus who here in person. Brown Act, you know what that is about. Um I have to kind of watch what I say. Uh and you know this is a Cat and Hat town. I think this is but uh trying to get a little serious because last night

I went to the special town council meeting and it was regarding you guys know what it was and it reporting kind of looked like fraud. Um it was just one-sided. Uh you guys I [snorts] don't know how it says that you guys approved this and and stuff like that and I think you put town council on the spot but uh there was uh I was trying to follow along and uh it was posted on I saw it posted on u Friday the before and uh there's you know this this document this desk item is is all one-sided. there's they they rushed this through. Um there was like 17 people that spoke, five on Zoom. Um and only a couple people said nay. I I went there verbally before because I uh my dad was a civil engineer, worked for the state of California, built bridges and and uh uh tunnels and you know helped design them. And I remember going and you know supervising some of the we had to wet wet the carpet down and stuff like that. But and I said hey the the the the traffic alone because you know I sent in pictures of Google map and it was red line red line red light and I said you know a thousand you can hear my my presentation. It was on verbal as the only one that spoke and then I didn't speak on the subject matter because it's it's a lawsuit and and waiting and and this town's probably to lose everything. It's a bankrupt. But what I'm trying to say is uh you got played um if you looked at the the recording at 4:323 to 43244 the the town council you know was was talking about um how that meeting got you know that date on on the 13th they the other team the other side you know

hey that's what we picked you know there's there's it was just there was a a a mother and a a it was I sent you pictures on and I'm not a public speaker but on Agnu and stuff like that and it was basically a mother and a a father came up with a a little child and just played you know it's it was it was they they were promised they would get housing. How can you promise somebody they would get housing if it was it was things? There has to be an investigation and and people and and I like to know. I heard that it was five to two voted but you know all this stuff is just like ah you know because I do it just there's a lot that that has to that has to be looked into and and you know if you just reviewed the tape it would be something that you know push it tell the town council hey you're you're this shouldn't have passed I I mean I didn't watch the whole tape

questions thank are there any questions for the Looks like no. Thank you. Are there any hands raised on Zoom? There are not.

Okay. Um, we will now be moving on to our consent calendar tonight. We have two items on the consent calendar. our uh draft minutes of the December 10th, 2025 planning commission meeting and the draft minutes of our December 17th special planning commission meeting. Um can I get a motion? Well, before I guess before we act on this, is there any member of the commissioner public um that needs to that wants to make a request to remove any of these items? No. Okay. Now, seeing none, do we have a motion? Commissioner Stump,

I first have to say that I was not at either the December 10th or December 17th meetings. However, I did view both of them on YouTube and so I am prepared to vote and so yes, I will move to have the minutes from the December 10th and December 17th meetings approved. Perfect. Thank you. Um, is there a second? Commissioner Bernett, I will second that.

Thank you. And any discussion? Great. So, I'll call the question um and ask for a show of hands in favor of the motion and that it will passes 6 I mean well abstension. I'm assuming you're abstaining. Sorry. Thank you. No oppose and one abstension as commissioner mayor was not on the planning commission in December. So, thank you. Uh we will now move on to our public hearing starting with item number three which is to consider an appeal of the community development director's determination of demolition on a property zoned R-18 located at 14340 Browns Lane APN 409-14-010 building permit B250-0171 categorically exempt pursuant to SQUA Guidelines section 15301 existing facilities. The property owner applicant and appellant is Kathleen Vad. Sorry, Vadas. I'm sorry if I butchered that. And um before the staff report, can I have a show of hands from commissioners who have visited the property? And are there any disclosures that need to be made? No. Okay. Uh Mr. Mullen, will you be providing the staff report this evening?

Yes. Thank you and good evening. for your consideration tonight. It is an appeal of a director's determination of demolition of a residence located at 14340 Browns Lane. In September 2025, a building permit was issued for an interior and exterior modifications and an addition to the residence. The town defines a technical demolition of a non-historic structure as removal of more than 50% of the exterior wall framing. The approved project plans included demolition of 48.3% of the exterior wall framing and the project did not constitute a technical demolition and was not scoped or processed as a uh as construction of a new residence as required by town code. The property owner, architect, civil engineer, and contractor signed a demolition affidavit acknowledging their understanding of the town's demolition requirements. On September 29th, 2025, a town building inspector conducted a scheduled progress inspection during which they discussed options to address a roof framing issue with the contractor, noting that approval of a revision to the permit was required. On October, sorry, excuse me, um on November 10th, 2025, a town building inspector conducted another scheduled inspection, noting that all the existing wall framing had been removed and replaced in kind. This work was not included in the approved uh project plans, nor was a revision applied for by the applicant. The building inspector contacted planning for follow-up. Uh the community development director and uh building official reviewed photos of this uh state of the residence confirming that the work resulted in an unlawful technical demolition. On November 14th, 2025, a stop work notice was issued to the property owner. And on November 21st, 2025, a notice of unlawful demolition uh from the community development director was sent to the property owner. On November 26, 2025, the decision of the director was appealed by the property owner. In their appeal materials, the property owner provided several reasons why their

appeal should be granted, noting that damaged framing was replaced in kind without deviation from the scope of the approved plans while acknowledging that a process step was missed. Principally, work was not stopped to allow time to contact planning and pursue an exemption from the demolition definition for inind replacement um or repair of damaged framing. The owner's full justification can be found in exhibit 7 and staff's response to each appeal point is included in your staff report. Your staff report also provides procedures for the planning commission's consideration of this appeal. And given the records of uh facts in this matter, staff recommends denial of the appeal upholding the director's determination of demolition. Uh this concludes my presentation and staff's available to to uh support your discussion this evening.

Are there any questions for staff at this time? Uh, Vice Chair Burch, can you clarify the planning commission's role as far as determination of the fees that are assessed? Mr. Mullen?

Yes, thank you for that question. So, the town code um allows for the planning commission to reduce some penalty fees, but not any penalty fee or penalties that are um adopted by resolution. In this case, there are no penalties that are not adopted adopted by resolution. Mainly that the um application fee for the arch the now required architecture and site application um that fee is doubled pursuant to the fee schedule. The fee schedule is adopted by resolution. Thank you. Any other questions? But uh Commissioner Stump,

uh Mr. Jamal, and this is probably a real nit, but when I was out on the property today and having taken a look at the photos, what exactly does a stop work mean? And let me just give you an example. Um, if I own the house, I'd do the same thing. I would wrap it, you know, to protect it from weather, but uh, house wrapping has been added to the property since I think that stop order went into place. though what reasonable things can they do even after a stop order has been issued.

Thank you for that question. Um my understanding is that work shouldn't progress. I don't know if there were some conversations between the contractor applicant and the um the building division to weather tight the building. That might be an a question that would be great for the applicant.

Any other questions? Okay. Uh we will now move on open the public portion of the public hearing on item number three and give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission for up to five minutes. Whoever will be speaking on behalf of the applicant, if you can please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record and between your whole team, we will have um you will have five minutes. I'm Gordon [clears throat] Wong. I'm the architect. I'm Kathleen Vid. I'm the homeowner. I'm Stephen, architectural designer at W Architects.

Uh Lamar Noland with Morland General Construction.

So, thank you for your time. I am the owner at 14340 Browns Lane. I've owned the home for 30 years. I've been a part of this community for that long. Also during that time we were heavily involved in the Lasatus United Soccer League running competitive soccer teams. Just brief background and how long I've lived here and been a part of this community. Um I am now here we are now in this process of me trying to remodel my home which is quite old and in doing so came across some you know um parts of the house that literally demolished themselves and we repaired um like for like uh we didn't deviate from the plan. We had several inspections. Um, we didn't change the square footage. This is a very small 1,400 foot home, you know. Um, I'm just trying to get my house to be livable so I can stay in the community. And we had a misstep um in just trying to repair the wood. Um, Yes.

If you could just make sure that you you can remove the microphone. So you Thank you.

Here's the timeline of how the project went starting all the way back in uh September uh September 25th, 2025 when the building print was removed. So you can see through the timeline all the inspections were going accordingly. Um I wasn't involved during the construction. The issue is is when that um that planning document was signed um it's it's sometimes it's very difficult to understand what that means. Sometimes people might interpret it as it means you get your inspection, the the inspector comes out, looks at the work and tells you what to do, right? And that's where the miscommunication was cuz they were going through inspections, do the whole process, and at some parts of the project, I was told that you were supposed to replace in kind,

right? And then I came back out there uh later on after the fact all the way back in 11:13 and was informed what's going on from the city because the divisions are they're separate, right? So as soon as we knew that then we actually prepared a demolition calc to figure out how far the deviation was and it was unintentional. Okay. All the the stuff that happened out there completely unintentional and I think they were kind of caught blindsided by this. So they we we put together all the documentation to show how the process went. Um we can go to the next slide please. And what Kathy is saying we have not deviated at all from the plans. wall heights, configurations, square footage, the remodel and addition are exactly identical. And some of the major issues with the demolition was because the pre-existing construction was incorre the house was incorrectly built when it was when it was bought. Right? When you inherited these this part of the process, the the mud sills were literally sitting on the mud. So replacing kind was kind of what fell into play. Um, next slide. And here you can see the hidden the hidden damages that were discovered while in construction. And it was the intent to follow the plans and follow all the codes. But we we were not clear about the like forlike repair how that process was going.

Department [clears throat] all transparency the building department indicated that these were in schedule repairs. These were repairs in working with the building department throughout this. That was the unintentional part. So, next slide. So, if you look at the building card and the dates, they actually paired up to what what the sequence of events were happening. Uh, next slide. Here are a couple of the key points of what happened in the construction, what's going with planning, the the penalties that were triggered, and what the reality was. So, we document all that. We we brought samples of the wood so people can see it. Um, we're open to discussion. We're hoping there's a resolution to figure out how to do this without doing this double penalty process. Had we had we had this this walked with planning, the project would remain exactly the same. It was a misstep. It was a misstep. And I didn't I wasn't informed till after the fact cuz I'm the architect. And as soon as I understood that, I said, "Wait, wait, wait. This needs to be a process here." And then we went to Shawn Mullen directly. Um, [snorts] and that's where the deviation is. So, we want to be very transparent about what's going on and if there is a way to resolve this. Um, why don't you explain the the

Yeah. So, uh, we can leave that for their questions. You guys are going to ask us questions about that. You water you waterproofed it because of the heavy rains. Absolutely. And the same building department. So, the building department, I spoke with with Roy in the building department and I indicated to him that it was going to rain and that we were that day in the process of thousands and thousands of dollars. Thank you. So, we we're open to questions and happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, do commissioners have questions for the applicant team at this time? Commissioner Bernett,

I can start. So, I guess this is directed both to the architect, the engineer, and the owner. And that is the um uh the original plans seem to have been specifically calculated to avoid triggering demolition. And if that was known then how was it what was the thought process in going beyond that limit without without getting a permit?

Yes. So we we had gotten the demolition cal done right and he opened the walls and didn't touch them. However, when he went and got the inspection and he was talking to the building inspector, the building inspector told him, "You need to replace this in kind." Okay. The problem sometimes is when the builder's told that, they don't realize at that moment they're supposed to go back to the city and planning department to talk about they think that, oh, the the building department mentioned I need to replace this in kind. So, that's where the disconnect is happening. Okay.

Yeah. And he at that moment in time, it looks like that's what what what you were supposed to be doing, right? And then once you talked to me, I said, "Look, these are separate departments." And I found that out after I saw the red tag and I was made aware of it. I'm the architect. I'm not out there building all the time. I find I usually get these notices after the fact and I have to decipher it. Understood. Okay. Thank you. I think you've answered. Commissioner Stump,

I just have a question of the demolition ad at at affidavit that was signed. Um, obviously it was signed by all parties or some party. Um, I'm not sure about the contractor because I can't really read the signature, but signed by all parties. I guess my question would be what is confusing? Maybe go back to that point. What is the confusing point specifically as it relates to this, you know, affidavit when it says because look, we know in a remodel there's going to be potentially hidden damage and that recognizes this and says, look, if you find dry rot, other things, um, it does not exempt the project from any provisions set forth in the code. I'll just say it that way. If you find dry rot and need to repair it, all caps. Stop work and contact the planning division phone number to discuss the changes. all caps before you proceed. So, I guess what I just want to ask is what was the point of confusion when it appeared that you had these instructions in black and white?

The I can go. You can go. The the point of confusion is when a building inspector says it's okay to replace that in kind. That's where they think that, oh, that actually overrides what's saying there. It's very confusing for a builder. And then I have to go back and look at it. And I said, "Yes, he says one thing, but this document says another. We need to talk to planning." You see what I mean? Because a builder a builder rarely talks to someone in planning. Right? So it's pro I've seen planners and commissioners many times, but builders don't really ever get a chance to talk to you and really understand when when these caps and these underlying statements are in here. It really means business to them. the inspector they're talking to at that moment means business, not that statement all these six months, eight months ago when we're pre-planning the project. My staff is is trying to calculate all these little things. They're focused on so many trades, so many difficult aspects of how to make the means and ways in the house safe. They're more they're more concerned about safety, right? they're more concerned about the nail gun firing to remember something always six to eight months back that I'm deciphering with him and we've communicated for about three minutes three or four minutes when we're signing the paperwork paying the fees it's really hard to remember so when I look at this situation that's why I'm here I see the the mis I understand but I also feel that the the amount of fines to put the house back together to the way it was had we had this step had he had we made this step happen, it would be exactly the same. The house would not have changed. It would just be a repairing kind. We'd get to review it together. Um, I don't see any egregious things that were done here when he was put in the house. It was just a a mis a mis uh information, a miss a miss. Like in San Jose, they don't have that. In Campbell, they do. So, in Campbell, I blue tape things. I I check and and builders do miss in Campbell all the time. The owner goes and I want this

cabinet here. But the demolition calc says you add the cabin in, you're 5% over at that moment in time. It's so hard for everyone to focus like that. Well, thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional questions for the applicant team at this time, Commissioner Sorty? Yeah, just looking again at the um demolition affidavit. So, just so I understand, the person who signed it, Gordon Wong, as the um well, it says architect of record and also contractor record. Are you both? I'll signed it. So, I'm the architect record. I'm the contractor.

You're the contractor record. Okay. So, you both signed it. Got it. And then, um, is this posted on site or available on site as a part of the job set? So, I mean, in case there's anybody else working on the project, they miss it. There is there is a page on the plans that has um

Oh, yeah. We have I'm talking about the affidavit itself. Is it part of the the job set and the documents that are on site that live on site? You have a copy of the plans. It could be in the folder that's on there. I I'm not sure. Okay. Like a whole new process for me. Right. Well, okay. [clears throat] Got it. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.

Yes. Thank you. So, a question. So, um, I'm sure you're experienced architect and contractor and builder. So, have you come across circumstances like this before? Have you worked with Lascata's homes redoing and remodeling? So, I I just would assume that you might be familiar with some of our service.

Highly familiar. Yes. Yes. I had a contractor miss the same thing um back in 2018. Uh, Baron Construction Group. They demoed some planters in the front of the house. I told him, "You can't do that." Um, the owner insisted on it and then they went to a demolition cal. I think Ryan Sappy was on the project and I said, "Look, you got to do this the right way." It happens a lot. And I'm working on 25 West Main Street. Um, uh, they they missed a wall and I immediately said, "We got to recalc this. We've turned it back into the city." Um, it's it's it's easier said than done to be able to follow the plan so strictly with so many different things like shear walls, demolition calcs, waterproofing, um, historic all all kinds of different riddles. And um, I I try to go back I try to go out in the site as as much as I can. Sometimes the owners may not see the value in what I'm doing. Um, Kathy is not that kind of owner. She has she wants me out there. Um, I I'm very sure this is a misstep. That's why I'm here. If it wasn't a misstep, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be vouching for them. Um, I've I'm working on historical projects constantly. I do like to protect what's out there and make sure it's done right and it's done according to the planning the planning ordinance.

Thank you for that. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant team at this time? Okay, we'll take public comment and then invite you back up. Thank you very much. We now invite comments from members of the public. If you have not already turned in a speaker card, which I don't have any others, um, please do so at this time. Perfect. Thank you. And if you would like to speak on item number three on Zoom, please raise your hand at this time.

Okay. Um, hi everyone. My name is John Wallace. I live next door to Kathy. Been there for 15 years uh as Kathy's neighbor. Um this was a small remodel on a small house and it was hiding decades of rot and it was it was it was pretty clear um that that's that was the condition of the house. So I'm I'm not super surprised that uh that they found even more. Um to me it sounds like and it seems like there's an awful lot of process and paper, but it sounds like uh too much wood was replaced. uh before the city was able to to take a look at it. Um I think if you look at the pictures and see the samples that you'll it's pretty any reasonable person would suggest that the path forward would be to replace the wood. Um I came here to vouch for her just as a as as a person and I know that she is um just a person in the community who's trying to fix her house. And I would um I would want you to think about what it's like to live in a house with 48.2% rot, right? And it was worse than that. Um, so I think what, you know, what actually got me to come out and not just vouching for Kathy, knowing her for as long as I have, um, I wanted to point out that $23,000 sounds like an outrageous fine or a member of the community who's just trying to get her house under 50% r. And I just I that number couldn't square with me. And I know that when I it didn't come on the little card in the mail and I and I read it online and I saw that number and I thought um that's that's multiple paychecks. I that's tremendous amount of money for somebody who's that she this is it. This is what she has. This is her house. She doesn't have extra houses. There's no vacation homes. She's driving a $6,000 Ford Fusion. No offense. Um this is this is the this is the real story of what's going on. And so when I when I hear her

uh upset and talking about being reclassified as new construction and everything that goes along with that and this is a this is somebody who's only this is her one thing in her life was saving up and making it in this town and raising her boys in that house. I would just implore you to really, you know, you're not dealing with some rogue property developer who's trying to cut corners. This is a little 1400 foot house on a 10-ft street. This is this is this is the the bottom like this is not like poverty bottom, but this is just like the the the grassroots type of stuff that that people are trying to make it in this community. So when you think about um this appeal, I want you to think about the person and I want you to think about the actual amount of money that you're asking this person to pay um for something that is admittedly um Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? No. Thank you for Thank you very much. Are there any hands raised on Zoom? There are no hands raised.

Okay. And I don't have any other speaker cards for this item. So, okay. Um Okay. So, um if the applicant team, if you can come back up, you have um an opportunity to make a closing statement if you wish. You'll have an additional three minutes and then time for more questions. I think I think you're good. I think the previous speaker said it exactly the way it should be seen. I mean, I walked in the house first time when I was doing the as bills. It really was that bad. And this is a longtime resident really just trying to put her house back together. You've lived there your whole life. Um,

these two are together, so he's trying to do the best job for her. Um, that's why I'm here. Uh, it's it's it's a humble project. It's a good project. Um, it matches the the the neighborhood well. Uh, the misstep was was not intentional. I'd really hope there's a way to resolve this without doing a double fine because it it was 23,000 times two. I mean, I don't understand how anyone's supposed to get to the other side when they finally can get this kind of stuff back together with the help of your construction team because you're not doing it any profit at all. You're just doing it to get family together, get things moving. Um, anything you'd like to say about it? I mean, I would just like you to see the human face behind some of these processes and procedures that are in place. Um, I respect the rules. I understand why there's red lights and green lights and stop signs and rules and regulations, but there is still a human behind some of these processes and decisions. And I am not, like my neighbor John said, I am not some affluent person who doesn't care and throw money at it. I am not in that situation and I won't be able to stay here and it's taken me 30 years. I bought this house when I was 20 years old. That should be an, you know, it's an accomplishment. And I've been paying a mortgage for 30 years. I've been a taxpayer for 30 years. I work here. I live here. And I'm literally just trying to repair it. And you know, there was a misstep, but it's not in any way, shape, or form to try to to skirt the rules. I don't know what more to say than than just that. I'm just trying to stay in my home

and we all know the rules are good. We understand. I respect them. We respect them. We're not trying to do anything. Yeah. If if the rules are skipped, I feel like there should be a way to resolve it without penalizing so quickly. And they're more than happy to resolve this and work with planning to make sure that we we do this with the process with a with a fair process that doesn't bias anybody. I mean, for for two months, it's been very difficult. My holidays were not the same. I wasn't with my kids. I've incurred numerous costs that I wasn't expecting.

Airbnb, you're in a trailer. I mean, this is two months. I I felt like I was I wasn't even given a chance to even talk about it. It was just stop and see you in two months and pay $50,000 a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional I think we will have some additional questions. I just want to say thank you for, you know, being honest and, you know, sharing with us because I know that it's a public space and it's you're being vulnerable. Commissioner Stump,

I realize you're here to appeal this decision this evening, and I guess I'm pointing this question directly to the owner. What is your hope for outcome from this hearing this evening? My hope is that I can live brought back to the remodel status and start work tomorrow. That's what I'm hoping for. Thank Thank you, Commissioner Sorty.

Thank you. Um, I wanted to one of the things that's kind of jumping out when I read your timeline and when I read the staff report is there seems to be a difference of recollection about the 927 uh 2025 inspection. Um, who is it that met with the building inspector that day? Have you Okay.

Um, that just says contractor notified and informed inspector that the bottom plates of the wall were termite damaged. Inspector informed contractor replace in kind as needed since it was non-repairaable. And so in the staff report, what we're seeing is that the timeline provides the dates of progress inspections conducted. Um staff contends that the summary of the inspection is not accurate. This is just in response to this specific note that you guys have made about the timeline. Um and then the building inspector's version of it is that it just says the discussion revolved around what was needed to address roof framing issues. The inspector advised the contractor of different options available and that any deviations from the approved plans would require a revision to the building permit to be submitted and approved. And so for the person that forgetting your name, sorry, that spoke to the inspector,

could you general construction? Okay. Could you just repeat your recollection of that conversation?

Yeah, it's uh I'm reading uh page 20. Well, page six of the staff were report under project timeline item four just in mid paragraph. It just it seems to have just a very different sort of take on on and I think this is from what the building inspector's point of view was than what's in your presentation. Our our timeline is going off the inspection card dates. Look at the inspection card. So on our slideshow you can see there's a image of the inspection card.

I I can show you it right here.

No, it's not the date. So I I'm just saying that the the in the project timeline under your appeal your response um on the part of your presentation it characterizes what the nature of that discussion was and it appears that what you're saying is the inspector informed the contractor simply to replace incline as needed as it was non-repable and then it goes on to say contractor misunderstood that building clearance was not part of the planning clearance etc. But it in our document, the staff response to that says the building inspector said the construction revolved around what was needed to address roof framing issues. Um advised contractor of different options available and that any deviations would require a revision permit uh to the building permit be submitted and approved. So I guess what I my specific question would be did you hear him say those words on that day or I mean do you rec do you recall that conversation? 100% I can recall every inspection and everything that was discussed at each inspection. Tell you in detail what we discussed. So we in detail discussed roof sack but there were but he had walked the entire property to look at existing foundation condition downs sheer walls rotted walls. Uh he visually had told me multiple areas you need to repair these areas. This is not going to work. If you have a hold down being secured to a stud that's non-existent, how am I here to inspect that hold down?

Okay. So there, you know, so it sounds like it was in the context of a whole lot of things that this that this multiple things going smaller focused part of the conversation happened. Left out a lot of the details about what we did discuss. I mean and I remember clearly discussing the roof at that time.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Are there any additional questions for the applicant team at this time? Okay, I think we just have some questions for staff. So, thank you very much. Appreciate Thank you all for being here to answer questions. And um we will now close the public portion of the public hearing on item number three. And I invite um commissioners to ask questions of staff. I think I'll have Vice Chair Burch go first and then Commissioner Renette after that.

That's the benefit of sitting right next to her as I'm I'm first. Um Mr. Mullins, can you clarify in the staff report? I believe what we had is the original um application had 48.3% demo and my understanding was all of the exterior framing was replaced like for like that's my understanding.

Um Commissioner Bernett. Thank you. I have three questions for the town attorney if I may ask them in sequence. Uh the first one is um is the town subject to an estoppel if the building inspector led the owner to believe that the demolition application or permit was not necessary. Uh it is very difficult to get a stoppple against a public agency. Um and so most likely the town would not be subject to a stoppple.

Okay. And then the second question is in so far as the owner has acknowledged a violation be it a technical one does the planning commission have jurisdiction to grant the appeal? Um, so the ordinance talks about the decisions that the planning commission can make and that's in section 2920255B. Um, and so the purview of the planning commission is to determine first whether or not there was a violation of the code. Um, and so that would mean determining whether or not there was in fact a demolition without a permit. And then um the second thing is the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty. Um however, there's another section that goes on to say that the planning commission can approve or reduce the amount of the penalty but not the application penalty fee. Um and I'll defer to Mr. Mullen, but I believe in this case um the town is only asking for the double payment of the application fee and is not imposing any other penalties. Um, and so it would be the other penalties that the planning commission would have the ability to reduce.

I see. And then I want to hear from Mr. Mullen, too. But, um, do I understand that the planning commission does not have the jurisdiction to compromise the amount of the penalties? Um, not as the code is currently written. Thank you. Uh, I said Commissioner Bernett and then Commissioner St. I'm sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett first and then you can go. Yes, thank you. A question for uh Sean staff. Um, would they be subject to a new per permitting fee for uh new construction or

Yes, thank you for that question. So with the trigger with the house being triggered into technical demolition um it's then considered new construction or a new house and then it needs to go through the architecture and site process. The architecture and site process fee applicable to this property um is 22,56818. Um, the town's adopted comprehensive fee schedule, which is adopted via resolution, requires that that be doubled by as penalty for unlawful demolition to 45,136.36. There's no other penalty fees being assessed by planning. Um, additional penalties may come based on the val the added valuation of the building permit. Um, but we'd have to look into that a little bit further. Um, some of the types of fees that could or penalties that could be reduced that are not applicable here, um, is that if this were a historic home that went through technical unlawful technical demolition, there's an additional, I think, 15% penalty of the valuation of the work. Um, that's not adopted by resolution. That's included in the town code. That's the type of thing that the planning commission, my read of the code, um, would have the authority to wave or reduce. So, just a follow-up question. Did you want to add anything to the comments made by the applicant or would I have to be specific or is there some something you would add to?

I'd be happy to address specific questions. I will just preface that with um my my discussion with the town's building inspectors is reflected in the in the staff report. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Stump. This is a follow-up question to Commissioner Barnett's questions and it's probably directed to you, Miss Wheelen. So, kind of bottom line it what authority does the planning commission really have here tonight?

The the two points to decide areas was was there was there not a demolition? Um, and that means was there removal of more than 50% of the exterior walls. Um, and then had the town assessed any penalties other than the double application, the commission would have the ability to reduce those extra penalties.

And I'll just add for a little more context, uh, the code specifically says the planning commission doesn't have that ability. Um, so that doesn't necessarily mean that if should the planning commission make a decision that the applicant doesn't agree with, they can appeal that to the council and the council may have that freedom. So, as kind of a followup to that, um, would it it depending on our decision, obviously, I think that we don't have a lot of leeway with like some of our other decisions that we make based on how this is written and interpreted interpreted. But would it be helpful to include discussion on what if what we might do if we had had the leeway. I don't know that it hurts should this ultimately get appealed. Obviously the council will get verbatim minutes so they'll have the um opportunity to review that those discussions should they occur this evening.

Okay. Thank you. Just a question about this type of situation and when demolition becomes an issue. How often do we run into this maybe on average in a year um in residential um and you know have have we assign have we assessed other fines and fees you know in the past year for this very situation?

Thank you for that question. It's hard to put a number on it. Um I I think we're often called out when demolition has exceeded in the plans and there's remedy. Um they can recalcate and show that they they remained under 50% and um they file a revision and we move on. So there's no stop work. There's no um determination of unlawful demolition. Um I would say um we don't get this far very often. um probably one or two times a year um we are frequently called out to uh do an inspection of un what they didn't anticipate when they open up the walls so that we can consider um exempting it from the demolition definition.

Commissioner Sordy. Yeah, I think I kind of know the answer to this question, but I want to ask it anyway. So it seems like getting back to my line of questioning earlier, we have a difference of recollection about the communication that happened in the field. And I guess my question is, do we have notes or anything from the building inspector that would um uh formalize or write down or a record of what the discussion was or if there was a letter sent or anything like that that documented the interaction.

Uh thank you for that. I'm not aware of a written record. Um there's the inspection record that the card that was presented in their um report um that provides very little detail and the digital record that we keep in our permit tracking system noted that this inspection took place. Um the the correction there was no corrections uh annotated in that record.

Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okie do. Um, well, I think that with the information that we have in the staff report, you know, we're responsible for determining if a technical demolition occurred. And I think that the evidence that we have is yes. I do think that the whether the there was intent for that or not is relevant to the greater conversation of the fees and scheduling and I am curious to hear what my fellow commissioners say. I mean we do not have the leeway to make changes in the to the or recommend changes to the application fee um situation. I you know however someone you know if this were to be appealed to town council like that group has more leeway. So um that being said I do you know construction I understand is is very expensive. Any type of remodeling is expensive these days. we have to have fees because we have to, you know, be able to employ people in town that are processing permits and all of that. And um however, I do also think that this is a really this is a high I mean I only live in town and own a property because my parents were fortunate enough to invest in property here and I this is the if I was in this situation it would be this like this difference in fees would be I don't have we don't have a giant savings. I'm an educator and my

husband is a soccer coach. Like this would put us over the edge, too. So, I do understand and feel for that. And I do think that um there have been changes in other aspects of penalties and fees in other areas that are more that are not a regressive tax or penalty. And so I would just say that I would maybe like at some wish for the future of our town that this is based on your overall construction cost taking into account also how much we need to be able to be making to make sure that staff can stay paid and employed and all of that and running the town. Um, but something that is more aligned with what a household's income is and how much their overall construction cost is, the value of their home. Um, that seems like something that would just be like more fair. And I know that we do see a lot of you know some things come in front of us and um it will be a you know when we updated our tree ordinance for example we raised a lot of the a lot of the fees because we were seeing people just say I'll pay that penalty get rid of that tree and we had to change it and you know we do have people in town that have a you know, there's a lot of affluence here and there and I understand that people we have to have fines and penalties and so that not everyone takes advantage just of breaking the rules and rather be paying the penalty versus going through the process. Um, but this seems to be a you know situation where this was just a misstep and it did trigger this process and it is unfortunate. So that is kind of um where I am at and I am curious to hear how my other commissioners feel

about some of this but I do believe that there is you know we've heard and seen the evidence that there was a technical demo that was done and so also at some point we will need to be moving on. Yes, Commissioner Stone.

Um whether we like it or not the black and white of this is that there is a violation. Um and of course normally we get paid the big bucks. Haha. because we play in the gray. We have no gray here. Um and that's I'm sure a bit of a frustration to the commissioners that we really don't have any authority to reverse anything or consider extenduating circumstances if indeed they exist. I'm not trying to put that forward. I'm just saying if you know we were to say, "Hey, extenduating circumstances exist. We'd like to consider that." So I also just have to put back another question to staff. What authority does the council have as it relates to let's just call it extenduating circumstances? We've heard a story tonight. It's a pretty compelling story. Again, the violation occurred. Uh not even the appellant uh will say uh that they did not commit a violation. Um they would say that was not their motivation, that was not their intent, but a violation did take place. So again, what flexibility, ability, authority does the council have to deal with what they could consider extenduating circumstances? Um I haven't looked at the code section that addresses appeals to the council because that hasn't happened yet, but um the town council does adopt all of the applicable fees for the town in an annual fee resolution and that usually happens um in April or so. And just for a little context, it's been a few years now, but we had a couple properties that were historic. As Mr. Mullen mentioned before, there's an additional 10 or 15% depending on the circumstance of the historic property. Um, and the council um has modified those. We also add another I believe it was a conditional use permit for a restaurant that was coming in um where they reduced some fees. Um, so you know, this specifically says planning commission. Um, which again, Miss Wheelen will definitely look at this should it get appealed to

council. Um, but typically I I would say that they probably have that ability commissioner.

Okay, so maybe I'm a little confused. So I'm reading the findings. Findings number two says the planning commission shall make the finding and issue its determination regarding the existence of the violation. That's part A. and then B the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty fee and that's item two standalone and then it goes on at the end on six and then it says the planning commission may approve or reduce the amount of the penalty but not the application penalty fee which is established by resolution. Um so can we reduce anything here or I mean we just we get to make a comment and if we think it's inappropriate we just say it's inappropriate and but we can't reduce it. Oh, so okay.

The penalty being assessed is the application penalty fee which is the double application fee. So that specifically in that section and specific to the planning commission that's the fee you you sorry the penalty that you cannot um reduce or wave. There are not in this circumstance other penalties that can be assessed specifically to historic properties that the planning commission would have perview over in this context. But just not in this context. Not in this context. Yeah, it doesn't seem like on this item we have discretion to do much of anything. I mean, unless I'm missing something. I don't know.

No, Comm I I mean, I agree. Yeah. From the my from our understanding, we do not have the Yeah, we don't have a lot of leeway here. And like Commissioner Stump said, we normally live in the gray. That's our, you know, job up here most of the time. But um this one is pretty unfortunately black and white. So uh Commissioner Bernett.

Well, I certainly want to echo the theme that this is um a hardship. It seems like an an unfair hardship. Uh but we're bound to follow the code. We don't have any discretion. And uh with somewhat of a heavy heart, I move to deny the appeal and make the following um required findings on page 7 and u 6 and 7 of the staff report in accordance with town code 292265. The planning commission shall consider any written or oral evidence consisting with the rules and procedures regarding the violation and this was performed. The planning commission shall make findings and issues regarding um the existence of the violation and the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty fee. Um the violation has been admitted uh and the amount of the penalty fee we're told by council uh is non-negotiable. Um planning commission shall issue findings of each violation and they'll be supported by the evidence. Uh there's a single violation. The failure to obtain the demolition period were required by the town code and the evidence of the violation includes all the facts in the staff report and the admission by the appellant that this was not performed and um therefore move to uh affirm the decision of the planning director. Thank you.

Can we get a uh yes, can we get a second and then we can have discussion? Yes, Vice Chair Burch, I will second and then can I make a quick statement? Yeah.

Um, I do want to say that I fully understand how there can be a disconnect between the paperwork that you file to get a permit and what is actually applicable and like practical in front of you in the field. So, I do not think that this is the fault of anyone. Um, I I truly think this is an error. We are, as you've heard in this discussion, quite limited in our abilities on what we can do, but you have heard that there are follow-up steps to this. And um I depending on how the vote goes, I I think you should probably talk to staff about what those steps are. Um yes. Yes, Commissioner Mayor.

Yeah. Um I just want to make a quick comment here. Um it feels like uh as a commissioner Hans are kind of tied on this but um I just want to say that I feel you know I'm an architect myself and I often do these demolition calculations uh pretty frequently uh around the Bay Area and you know different jurisdictions have different rules but they're somewhat similar and with with the demolition uh calculations also the affidavit I feel like the intention behind that and you know sign that signing that as a professional is you're basically saying you're not going to pull a fast one on the town. You're not going to do a project that wasn't approved. And in this particular case, it feels like that wasn't [clears throat] the case at all. It was just a very honest mistake. I went through the plans of the remodel edition. It's a very modest addition. It's a very, you know, well done, thoughtful, small project. And I feel like the fact that we're even having this conversation highlights that this is a broken process here. So even though we can't really do much about it today, I just feel like something's wrong here. I I don't feel good about it. Um I come across this, you know, sort of thing all the time. And really with remodel edition projects, you're always going to open up the wall and find something that wasn't there, right? That's going to happen. But in this case, it just feels like there was a some sort of breakdown or miscommunication when that actually happened in this case. And I I don't know what the right resolution is to to solve this problem, but um it just doesn't sit well with me. So those are my two cents.

Thank you. Um, I do just also want to add and I think that Commissioner Stump mentioned this about the like stop work language and it is bolded, you know, stop work and contact the planning division before you proceed. And I can see how the like discrepancy between, you know, planning, you might skip over it. You might think building it's like in the inspectors come has come out. we've had these conversations like, you know, I can see how an inspector would be like, "Yeah, that's something that needs to be addressed. It needs to be fixed." And then like it's also not the inspector's job to be like, "Hey, you have to go back to planning to do whatever." So maybe this language does need to be just, you know, making sure that planning is also bolded or something because some places it is different and people are working in many jurisdictions. So, we can't take public comment right now, but if there is a recommendation, I do recommend that you like reach out to the planning department. If you have a recommendation on uh you know, or if there's more clear language from another jurisdiction, um that would be that would be helpful because avoiding any type of situation like this will help everyone out in the future. Okay, any other discussion at this moment or comments? Commissioner,

I don't know if this is appropriate, but I was going to put this out to my fellow commissioners and say, you know, should we add something into our motion for the council to give some consideration to hardship that they would at least know what our feeling is on this matter? It seems that we are all like on the same page with regards to that. I would just ask the staff and town attorney. Uh that could be done. That could be part of the motion. Okay. I'm happy to amend the motion to adopt that language for Mr. Stump.

Second that. Okay. Thank you. Okie do. Let's go ahead then and um call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And it passes unanimously. And uh Mr. Pollson, can you read the appeal rights? Yes. Thank you. Anyone who's not satisfied with the decision decision of the planning commission can appeal that decision to the town council. Forms are available online and in the clerk's office. There's a fee for filing the appeal and the appeal must be filed within 10 days.

Okay. Thank you very much. We will now be moving on to item number four, which is to consider a request for approval to modify plan development ordinance 2281 to allow for a lot line adjustment and zone change on properties zoned HR-2 PD and HR-1 located at 163000 Green Ridge Terrace, 16084 Green Ridge Terrace and 240 0 LERA Court APN's 527-12-003 527-12-004 and 527-15-002 plan development application PD-25-004 lot line adjustment application M-25-006 and zone change application Z-25-001 the request for modification of a planned development ordinance is not considered a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The request for a lot line adjustment is exempt from SQUA as a ministerial approval in accordance with public resources code section 211080B1 SQA statute and SQA guidelines section 15268. The request for zone change is also exempt. Um, pursuant to see section 15061B3. Property owners are 1630 Green Ridge Terrace and 240 LERA Court, Green Ridge Terrace Development LLC, 16084 Greenidge Terrace, Richard Lou. The applicant is Hannah Brunetti. And before we get the staff report, can I get a um show of hands from

commissioners who visited the property? Although it's kind of an interesting visit because there's not, you know, we understand. We all get it. Okay. Yeah. To the extent that it was specific

that it was visitable. Um exactly. Thank you. And then um are there any disclosures more importantly for this one? Okay. Mr. Mullen, will you be presenting the staff report for us? Thank you. Thank you again. Uh before you tonight is consideration of two lot line adjustments, an amendment to the Green Ridge Terrace Plan development ordinance and a reszone. Um the three subject properties are located south of Blossom Hill Road. Two are located in the LERA subdivision which was created through that PDO ordinance and one is just outside adjacent to the uh subdivision. All three properties are currently undeveloped. The applicant proposes two lot line adjustments between the three properties um because the property configurations within the PD uh area would change. Uh a modification of the applicable PD ordinance is required. Additionally, a portion of one property um affected by the lot line adjustment in the PD would be transferred to the neighboring property outside the PD area and that necessitates a zone change from uh HR 2 and a half PD to HR1 to match the receiving property. All proposed lots would meet the zoning requirements for HR properties and all aspects of the PD would remain unchanged except for what's proposed here to allow for the um lot line adjustment. So staff recommends that the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the town council who will render the final decision on the project. Uh this concludes my presentation and staff's available to answer any questions

and questions for staff. Vice Chair Burch. Yeah, just to clarify, Mr. Mullins, we don't normally see lot line adjustments. Are we seeing this specifically because of the modification to the PD? And yes, typically lot line adjustments are forwarded to the DRC since they're a ministerial action, but our town code requires that they go to a public hearing. Um because there's a PD ordinance and a zone change here, the in a vacuum, the planning commission has the authority to grant approval of the zone change. Um um backwards. Both of them would need to go all the way to the town council. Back that out a little bit. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Um we will now open the public portion of the public hearing on item number four and give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission for up to five minutes. So, who will be speaking on the for the applicant team tonight? Great. Um, just you know, please state your name for the record and you can adjust the microphone in however you want to split your time. You have five minutes. [clears throat]

Good evening, Amanda Mussyell with Hannah Bernetti. Um, we're doing a lot line adjustment to a project that was approved, it feels like yesterday, but I think it was six years ago. Um, I think Commissioner Burch was the only member on the planning commission at the time. And at the time we got this approved, we were like, "Thank God it finally got approved." And now that we're going through developing the lots, we realized that maybe what we decided uh 10 years ago that maybe that wasn't the best way of developing the property um within [clears throat] the the eight lot subdivision. And so what we were doing is just aligning it so that the house and the yard and the trail that kind of got added in, you know, towards the end it, you know, just develops better for our property. And while we were doing the lot line adjustment, um there's a little dog leg that if if it works, um if not, um there's a little dog leg that our property has that just makes more sense to give it to Mr. Lou. um so that we could all develop our properties in a more town-friendly manner. Um so if there's any questions, we'll be happy to answer them.

Commissioner Sordy, more for curiosity than anything, but do you have anything that shows um the preferred layout, the building footprint itself? Well, we don't have building footprints, but we have like the location of Yeah, there you go. We're [laughter] having technical technical difficulties with the screen share. So I really want your what are those the overhead projector back but you know I have lobbyed for that. [laughter]

Yes. I don't if this can make the record. I don't but that's kind of the intent of the development and and so that what's there in the yellow is the trail easement and you could see the topography of the lots and how that you know general house and yard locations kind of line up better. Okay. Um, so it's on uh existing lot three, [clears throat] the 1acre lot that we're trying to

uh that would be uh Mr. Lou's lot that would have would gain extra property. The lot one and two within the subdivision is an even um swap. Yeah. Is it just one house that you're trying to improve the contours or is it uh it's we're not actually the houses would remain in the same location. And it's just making the yard. Oh, it's more for yard. Yeah. And more privacy and more in line with the topography of the lots. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm really familiar with this area cuz I actually go roaring through here on my gravel bike. I don't know if I'm going to be allowed to do it when you're done building. There's a trail meant for you. [laughter]

Um, and I did do that just uh the other day. So, okay, that's all I had. Thanks. Any other questions for Oh, Commission uh Commissioner Bernett. So, this is also perhaps um theoretical, but I understand the uh easement is going to be preserved as part of this development. Can you describe what it is? Is it equestrian trail or pedestrian trail or is it is it defined in some way? It

So, there's there's actually a number of easements affecting the subdivision. There's some scenic easements. There's some over open open space easements. Those two types of easements function basically as conservation easements where development can't happen. There's also a trail easement. Um, and I can't remember the exact langu language of the trail easement, but I believe it's multi-purpose or multi-use trail. So, it's not specific to hiking, cycling, or equestrian. I see. That's my recollection. Thank you. Any other questions for Commissioner Sordy?

Sorry, that raises another question. Just more out of curiosity. So with the trail easement once the development is complete allow someone to connect from Lara all the way through Green Ridge and then so in other words you would go from Shady and you could go all the way down the Blossom Hill back again. Yeah. So there's one trail easement that will connect you into Francis Oaks and one trail easement that will take you around to the future trail that's on the other side of our

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? [laughter] Okay. Okay. Um, we Okay. Thank you very much. I don't think we have any other questions. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item number four? Okay. Any hands raised on Zoom? No hands.

Okay. You can um if you need to come up to do a closing argument. Okay. Are there any additional questions that we have for the applicant team before we close the public hearing? Okay, we will now close the public hearing on item the public portion of the public hearing on item number four and I invite commissioners to ask questions of staff and make a motion. I mean, I can start off. We, you know, yesterday when we met with staff to get clarification, it's like a small lot line adjustment. Normally, we would never see this, but because it's planned development and this, you know, the zone change with the giving the land reassign, you know, reassigning some land with a lot, it just ended up like being something that came in front of us. But um you know there's no major changes to the PD and it is you know good to know changes even to where proposed you know where the plans are for structures to be. It's just really more based on the topography and for yard for yard usage and everything. So, um I feel very confident with granting this approving. If anyone has any other things or would like to make a motion,

Commissioner St. I just have a question about um how the motion would be structured. There's a significant number of findings. Do I I assume that all of these findings have to be made by the commission. That's correct. Um, and I would defer to uh, Miss Wheelen whether you need to state those findings verbatim in your motion or by reference exhibit. Yeah, I'll start. You don't need to reference them by, you know, individually. You can say as stated in the staff report, unless Miss Wland has a more proper way to say that. I agree. Well, then if I can, I'd like to put forward a motion.

Go for it. I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the town council on a request to modify plan development ordinance 2281 that allows a lot line adjustment and zone change on properties zoned HR2 and a half PD and HR1 located at 16300 Green Ridge Terrace 16 084 Greenwood Greenwood Terrace and 240 Lara Court. This motion includes recommending that the town council make the required their required findings and approvals as outlined um in our document. I can make the finding for a required finding for SQA required findings for amending a plan development required determinations for compliance with the subdivision maps act provisions regarding lot line adjustments is set forth in government code 66412 uh D. I can make the required finding that the zone change is consistent with the town's general plan and that there is required compliance with the zoning regulations.

Is there a second? Vice Chair Burch, I'll second the motion. Any discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And the motion passes unanimously. Are there any I mean, this was a recommendation, so no appeal rights. That's correct. Okay, great. Thank you. We um are going to the next item. Uh Vice Chair Burch needs to recuse herself and we're just going to take like a quick 5m minute break to get bathroom and water. So we will be back at 8:21. Thank you.

We took a quick break. We will now be moving on to item five on our agenda, which is to consider a request for approval to construct a new second story addition to an exist existing single family residence on property zoned R-18 located at 140 Oakmont Way, APN424-18-023, architecture and site application S-25-052. It's categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act section 15301. Existing facilities property owners are Mark and Marie Tognney. Sorry if I butchered that. And the applicant is Solar Safety. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um if uh can I just as a reminder, Vice Chair Burch is not here. She's recusing herself due to proximity of the uh lo of her own house to the property. And before the staff report, can I just have a show of hands of people that visited the site? Great. And then are there any disclosures? Um, I just I also live nearby, not within the 500 ft, but I am familiar with the neighborhood and I walk by all the time. So, but it should not be affecting my ability to make a impartial decision tonight. So, um, Mr. Nathan, staff report, please.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, before you is an architectural site application, and the project is located at 140 Oakway, zone R18. The applicant's proposes to construct a 625 ft second story addition and a 279 ft first story addition to an existing 1,731q ft singlestory residence. The proposed project meets all zoning standards including height, setback, flow area, lot coverage, and parking. Uh during the minor residential application review process, staff encouraged the applicant to reduce the floor area to avoid being the largest residence in the immediate neighborhood and meet the consulting architect's recommendation. The applicant did work with the staff to make design modifications. However, the project remains the largest in the immediate neighborhood by 327 square ft and the largest in F. The applicant state stated in the letter of justification they are unable to reduce the flow area as they need the proposed footage for their growing family. Pursuant to town code, if the planning director determines that the application cannot be approved because it does not comply with the town's development standard, the applicants and applicants unwilling to revise the plan, the applicant may file an architectural site application and the applicant shall be considered by the planning commission. The project is being referred to the planning commission due to concerns that the proposed residence has the largest square footage in the immediate neighborhood by 327 square foot and would be the largest affair and has not met all the recommendation of the consulting architect as outlined the staff report. Uh this the applicant has provided justification in exhibit 4 and response to the consulting architect's recommendation in exhibit 9. And this concludes staff's presentation and so I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Uh, Commissioner Bernett,

question for staff. So, no story polls were used and I I realized we do have a a new ordinance or whatever that I I was confused. I thought our story story pole ordinance did allow for homes, but I guess it's it does not. But my concern would be that if we had a story poles done for this project, I think the neighborhood would have gotten a better feel for what the size and the mass and the bulk of it was. So, um I just just want to make that comment that um the neighborhood would have gotten a better idea of what it actually would be looking looking at and maybe uh the planning commission could look again about story pole ordinance and make some changes I think would be a good idea. So, I guess my comment is that that was my comment. I didn't really ask you a question, but

did you I think that there I mean can we explain why there was Can we get an answer of why there weren't story polls included? Yeah, I can jump in. So, the story pole policy was amended in 2024 as part of a housing element implementation program to um streamline and remove barriers to development of housing units. Um story polls are still required for some residential projects um and some commercial projects. In this case, story pools were not required because there's a two-story residence next door um to this residence and therefore it's um uh not required or is there Yeah. So, can I just

That's right. There was there is a two-story house right to the right of the subject property. So, question followup. So if if there's a twostory house next to this one, although it is so it's much smaller, I mean in F and size, I mean, you would think that there would be that it would be necessary because there is quite a difference in the sizes.

Yeah, I think story polls are a useful tool um to demonstrate to um decision makers and to neighbors the impact of proposed development. um what the council chose uh this was what the council chose in implementing that housing element uh program to remove barriers to housing development story polls are a cost there can be a pretty significant cost and that's um what we or the the council adopted um in implementing that program from the certified housing element. Thank you. Are there any uh Commissioner Stump?

Um Mr. Nathan, it's a little bit unique when we get two reports from our consulting architect. We received one in January, we received one in September. And I know that a redesign did take place of the property, but how are we to treat these two reports? So I'm looking at them as being additive uh not just separate reports but there were comments made in the first report about scale mass bulk and then it got into other issues related or recommendations that were made. So can you tell us how these two reports work together?

Sure. Uh thank you for the question. Uh well what happened was that uh there was a significant redesign of the house and also the applicant uh had a new design team. So because it was in in effect was a very different design from the first one. So we sent it back to the consulting architect and we treated the second one one as the primary one and we don't really we didn't really look at the first one because of the significant design changes and because of the new architect that came on board. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Bernett,

with the redesign, was there any change in the square footage? I didn't notice it was I didn't see it in the report. Very little. It I think it went up by 10 square feet. Not Yeah, but very little. Okay. But the F didn't change change. It didn't change. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Um, we will now open the public portion of the public hearing on item number five and give the applicant team an opportunity to address the commission for up to five minutes. So, whoever is speaking on behalf of the applicant team, you can go ahead and come up. Please just state your name. You can adjust or remove the microphone as much as you need. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh good evening ladies and gentlemen permission. I think to prepare for this I had to watch a lot of your videos. Say you you do a really good job. I always wonder what you do here and I after watching 12 hours of video I have a good idea. This is a nice job. Thank you. Yes. My name is Mark Tang. I and I live at um 140 Oakman way with my family. My wife is here. This is my son and my daughter. And um so I'm here today to respectfully request your approval for the expansion of our family home. And so we are we are proposing to increase the size of our residence from uh the 1,700 square ft to the 2600 ft². Uh this expansion is not a luxury, right? but an essential steps to accommodate the eving and complex needs of our growing household. The primary driver for this project is our family. Yes, you have two children were basically entering adolescence which brings significant need for individual space and privacy and also my household is a little bit more complex. you have an extended family basically the in-laws that uh live with us uh part of the year and uh so basically this bring the size of our house our family unit to uh almost eight to eight individuals. So and it's simply and the current house is no longer adequate for for our needs. So and we have been planning this project for almost 10 years now and we we we think that 2024 was the the right time and then we we put together a design. So

the basically the that that expansion will allow us to reconfigure our home into a four bedroomedroom and threebedroom layout. So I think that this this provide a much needed individual room for our children and comfortable and private living arrangement for our parents and also my wife and I we work from home. So we three or four times a week you have to we work from home and it's much more easier to manage the kids schedule but also by being able to work from home. So the the expansion will allow us to uh have more suitable home office space and uh to maintain our productivity and reduce the disruption to our family and most more importantly we also this wasn't just a project out of our mind. We talked to the neighbor. I think Kendra is one of our neighbor. We we discussed our neighbor what was at least we let we let them know exactly what we wanted to do and uh based on the feedback uh there was no objection we answer all the question as part of regular annual podlock. So and we also we have actively listened to the commission feedback at least to the staff feedback here. So that's even the reason why we had to change for architect here to work with someone who was much more familiar with what's going on with the loss town and we tried to modify our initial plan to align with the recommendation of the town consulting architect. So we think one of the main main concern was the bulkiness of the front facade. We minimize that and the visual impact and also I was thinking about adding some

trees even after uh modifying that impact to minimize it visual size. So, and basically we are committed to a design and construction process that will be in complete harmony with the neighborhood and also comply with the town guideline. Yeah. Thank you for your time and consideration and for your support in allow us to ensure the comfort and well-being of our entire family within this community. We are available for any final question you may have.

Thank you. So, are there any questions for the applicant at this point in time? Uh, Commissioner Bernett.

Yes. So, from my perspective, the big issue before us is the two points that the architect has made to reduce the mass. One being recess the windows an additional 4 in and also to put grids on them. And so actual divided panes or an equivalent. So uh as I understand the objection on the grids is that it makes them difficult to clean. But my understanding is that there are snap-in grids that can easily be removed. In fact, I have them myself. Uh so I wonder if you could I could trouble you to comment on why you don't want to go the other four inches and why you're opposed to the grids. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I would comment on the grid. Yes. My my problem with the grid is that it's currently what we have and it's really difficult to clean and because of the size of the house maybe logistic to reach out to the second floor to clean those grid. So that that's that was my main concern with the grid. But I don't object honestly that is If it's something that is required, I'm open to uh by my design

about the recessed windows.

Hi, I'm Solar Safi. I'm the designer on the project. So, uh typically uh the style of the home that they have selected is inconsistent with the inset windows. So um we recommended that that's because that is not consistent with the style uh we don't go forward with that but um again uh the recess windows are uh and an additional 4 in that means that they have to build a bulkier wall in order to provide that inset. So um I personally as a design look and feel for what the owners and the clients would like to have I do not recommend them and that's why I put in uh in our uh response to the land uh to the architect. Um uh CDG group has a specific design guidelines that they have been uh I think Canon design group has the their own kind of design standards that they go after and it's not really consistent with every project and they have made the com consistent comment on this. So uh that's why I push back on that but that's um but that's where we are.

Thank you for those comments. Do you have any other comments, Commissioner Bernett? Have they answered the question? Question. Sorry. Uh, Commissioner Stump,

let me uh you spoke to design briefly and of course in this immediate neighborhood, this is the only home that would be a Spanish or Mediterranean type architecture. And one of the things that our consulting architect pointed out in his report, and this was from the September 18th report, basically said there are some guidelines where this proposed design appears not to be consistent with our residential design guidelines. And just real briefly under general design principles, it talks about design to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out. Reinforce prevailing neighborhood development patterns. relate a structure, size, and bulk to those in the immediate neighborhood. And so I guess my question would be, how does this design blend into this neighborhood, Spanish Mediterranean design,

right? So where so there are a couple of things here. One, that the owners and the clients have some wish and the hope of the dream house that they want to build in, how they want that to look. Um so that's one aspect of the way we approach our design process. The second thing is um we have gone through design iterations with the staff and uh there is an extension of um the the extent of the neighborhood that you approach and depart from basic basically. So, if you're getting into the neighborhood and you're leaving the neighborhood, if you see houses that are similar to it, you uh consider that as um as part of the extended neighborhood. And in fact, as you're coming out of the culde-sac, on the on the first or the second house on the left, when you make a left turn, there's a Spanish style house with this type of uh clay roof or uh the concrete uh sype concrete roof that has a Spanish style house. So, um I think when we measure this is aboutund and um some foot away uh from the prop property. And so uh we have tried to keep that consistent and also incorporate what the client wants. That's their that's the desired outcome look for their house. They're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get something and they do not want something that looks exactly like their neighbors. And I I think that's um as a designer I think that's absolutely fine. But I understand that there is the design guidelines uh and I do not believe that we are um impeding on them.

Commissioner Bernett,

thank you. Yeah, I I guess I just want to follow up with Commissioner Stump. I I totally agree with what he said. I mean, this is a neighborhood. There's no other home at all in the whole neighborhood that has any comparable to what this design is. It's out of character for the neighborhood. The size, the look. Um, you know, our design guidelines are very specific. It's it's supposed to be neighborhood compatible. Um, when people buy into different neighborhoods, they and architects, I'm sure you're aware of our design guidelines. So, I'm wondering were there any other I I know the preference would have been for this this style home and actually the final design is is a nice design. I I think it is appropriate. I just don't think it's appropriate in this neighborhood because once um I mean it would just be out of character. So my question again would be had you ever did you ever consider having a home that would fit more in with architecture?

Um I will respond shortly because I already addressed the the concern. However, I will uh have uh Mark also explain. Um we we do not believe that the proper the project is out of character in the neighborhood as you approach again uh out of the the extension. We we spoke with uh Mr. uh Sean Mullen and staff on this uh in depth because uh it's an ongoing conversation with the um the town's uh consulting architect as well as the the process that we went through. I think uh before my time Mark has been doing this for a long time and um trying to get this uh project through. So um I try to combine the consulting architect's comments uh get the desired outcomes from the client and implemented into a nice holistic design that um will uh in a way add character to the neighborhood and not just match exactly every single house that's next door. I appreciate Mark if you have anything to add. Um I think uh the at least the concept of imager neighborhood is a little bit uh stringent because when I walk in my neighborhood I say when I drive in my neighborhood five less than 100 ft from my house is the horse of Kendra which is the same model which is almost the same. That was the inspiration for me because basically when we talked during annual potlog that was one of the comment that was brought up. I say yes if you want to streamline the process of getting your house approved just look at the neighborhood and pick a house that look exactly like that I say okay I like Kendra house that's exactly type of house I would like to have and in my neighborhood I say like I say it's not a design for sure it's a design that I like but I also took inspiration of what

is going on in the neighborhood because before I bought this 140 of Monway the house that I wanted to buy was on Corin drive and on Corin drive exact the person who bought that house basically just turned it into a Tuscan style house. Yes. On to drive. Yes, that was exactly my also one of my the inspiration for this project. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. And Commissioner Mayor. No, you're good. Okay. Um so we will have another opportunity to um get questions. Are there any? We will move on. We'll take public comment. Are there any members of the public? I don't have any other um or wait. Oh, no. This is you. Okay. Sorry. I don't have any cards. Are there any hands raised on Zoom for members of the public that wish to speak on item number five? There are no hands raised on Zoom. Okay. So, you will have an additional three minutes. If you have anything else to add, we can follow up with any other comments, questions.

I I appreciate the the staff's time on this. They have gone above and beyond um helping and supporting us on on this process and I appreciate your time tonight in uh approving Mark's house hopefully. Thank [snorts] you. Yeah. Want to say something? Yes, I again I would like to thank you for your time as I would like to conclude by saying yes it's uh as Sal mentioned it's my dream house it's basically what I want but I I actually took a lot of effort to make sure that it blend into the neighborhood like because I said this is a style of house that I like and I like that style of house because I walk around my neighborhood and I saw the house that were there and I said, "Okay, I didn't just by what was already there.

Thank you." Um, we do I think that we might have a few more qu I mean I at least have a couple of questions. Um, Commissioner Bernett mentioned um about or Commissioner Barnett mentioned some Can you explain that again? What you have?

I was referring to Mr. Cannon's second report in which he had uh two final recommendations uh that the um applicant had already adjusted the plans to meet other concerns uh but that these were outstanding issues. So, but um I'm sorry. You have on your own home some Oh, I have snap out grids on pillow windows. Yeah. Okay. So, you have So, they appear as divided lights, but they snap off so it's easier to wash. They're easy to clean. They just clean this out.

Okay. So, my question for you is, is that something that you would be amendable to? It's not really the It's not the look of the divided lights that's the problem. It's more of the the ease of being able to to clean them. Okay. Um I may add uh this house has a twostory window. Like basically there's a two-story element where uh there's a staircase. There's no access to these windows. So what Mark's concern is also they have to have additional logistics to get these done. Um, again, I understand that there's um but if I mean it's it's really small item if you want to compromise on it's not a big deal. Yeah.

Um Okay. I um so if I guess that um just from your perspective as the designer, what type of like windows would like what type of divide would be appropriate for this architectural style? What we have done in the past with this style that looks in in my opinion looks nice is the horizontal lights uh where there is minimal basically on the taller windows you do two on the short narrow and awning type windows you do a cross um or just one down in the middle. Um that in my opinion we've done in the past and it looks very elegant.

Okay. Thank you. Um my additional like I just kind of wanted you know you responded to the and made the change like the architect changes. So what I'm seeing right now on page I know that you guys don't have this on exhibit 7 on page 231 just for my fellow commissioners. I was just going to ask a couple of questions about that. So, um, you know, you responded to each of the recommendations and so the change to the balcony obviously to reduce the mass and everything back and then the addition of the Juliet balcony to kind of keep that consistent. um is what you did instead of um the you know AB or C recommendations from the architect above. So can you just explain how this choice aligns with the recommendation for us? Um I think the the question was on that if I remember correctly it's been a few months uh we've been going back and forth on this but the the comment was uh to reduce mass and uh basically essentially align the uh roof the eve lines um in order to basically match and bring down the mass of the house. So we got rid of the coverage above the balcony. So, it's an uncovered balcony and so it's essentially just the roof of the um entry uh foyer.

Um yeah, and that balcony will be fun, you know, functional. You can go out and so the railing will be, you know, high enough to coat or whatever, but the Juliet balcony is just Exactly. decoration essentially. Exactly. Perfect. Um and then the I think that was it. and then the um yeah the simplification of everything else. Okay, thank you very much. Uh Commissioner Stump does have a question for you.

Of course, we always appreciate hearing that you have a good experience with our planning staff when you work with them. As you know, the recommendation that's been provided to the commission is to deny the um architecture [clears throat] and site application for this project. and it's based on concerns about neighborhood compatibility related to size, bulk, and mass. Uh, one of the comments that was made in the report as well is that this is the largest house by 327 square ft in the neighborhood. And so I think that's also part of the discussion around reducing size, mass, and bulk um as well as the whole item or issue around neighborhood compatibility. So I guess my question is in the discussions you've had with our planning staff and they've probably given you feedback about size, mass, bulk, see you don't want to hear it anymore, but what changes now and I hear that from the one designer to the next you actually increased by 10 square feet you know not a big deal but it went up not down. What changes did you consider to um you know I guess I could say get in line with our residential design guidelines as it relates to um mass and scale of this home. So essentially we have to consider as a design team as a professional in the field we have to figure out what the client needs are and of course also make sure that we're consistent with this uh the neighborhood and the design guidelines guidelines of the jurisdiction we're in. Therefore um the second floor essentially is only 624 square ft. That's is slightly larger than a twocar garage. Uh for a two-bedroom, one bath on the second floor, which basically will house either their offices or their

kids bedrooms. Um the entire house is 2600 and essentially they need every single square ft of that is allocated to a single certain use for them. Um we did speak um about this in depth with Mr. Sean Mullen and uh and staff uh Mr. Sur the issue is um the and and they they agreed that all of the projects that come in through this process if they are the first one in the development they will encounter this issue because all of these homes were built in 1940s 1950s and the homes were that size at when they built them because they were enough at the time. now growing families, everybody's in the house, no one can move out because of these expensive prices. I'm sorry I'm speaking on your behalf, [laughter] but essentially you're left with people that are always going to be together. They just need additional space um to just live. Um I uh honestly 2600 ft. I have just one child and um it's me and my wife and I believe that even that might not be enough for us [snorts] like with all the stuff that is happening every day. I work from home, she works from home, it's just I I don't know but these these guys are getting older. They need the additional space. I his family moves in, her family moves in, they're uh in constant flux of need for space. So when we are in the allowed F it seems I apologize for saying this it seems unreasonable to ask of the client who is also again I'm bringing this up spending

hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars hardend money to build their dream house and they're only going to do this once they can't just keep doing this and keep doing the process. Um, I believe what they're asking for is absolutely necessary for them and that's why they're building this. Otherwise, they could just go buy something and that's that's ready. And um, again, they're going through this entire process, this hardship of dealing with these plans, dealing with these architects and these design teams to get to essentially a house that they can live in and they can be comfortable. Um that's just my two cents. But uh again this is uh in response to like okay if the the comment comes in and they say okay no you're you're bigger than everyone else. You're in the allowed F but you're bigger than everyone else but no one else has developed their lot to be uh within the last I don't know 30 years 40 years. Of course they're going to be the smallest house but these guys are the first to do it. Um I'm sure that once these guys built someone else is going to be bound to do it. these houses are going to be falling falling apart soon. So, um yeah, I mean

yeah to to piggy back on uh on what you're saying, I think two two of my neighbor on my right already expand a house and the third one on the back is planning to do it. So, and you were joking yesterday say, "Oh, it's good if you got approved. I would just have a maybe 10% bigger than you." He has that on his plan already. My my neighborhood is more of a transitional neighborhood. It's not static because I think I mentioned I think during my my last request, I think there is a a new a new build that is almost 4,000 foot, but 2,000 foot uh base. So that's uh the transition that is going on in my neighborhood.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Stump. As I recall, you actually did go out and speak to neighbors or share your plan with neighbors. Yes, I did. Did you actually share Yes. this type of information? To what level of detail did you share? And can you just share with us anecdotally some of the feedback that you received from your neighbors about this design? Yes, I I share the design with u Can you can we ask you to still speak into the microphone? Yes. Sorry, please.

Yeah, I I share that design the detail of the design. I think I have the the the detail design that Salah produced with each of the 10 immediate neighborhood. I think I have two letter of uh feedback from my neighbor as part of my package here where they basically express oh they like the design and they don't have any objection because we we talk about the privacy issue. I think with my neighbor Maria, she's basically I think she's uh she also has a second floor in her house and she planted those uh I don't know how you call those trees those uh privacy tree already. So there's already a privacy tree between her house and my house because she built a second floor. I think she was one of the first one to build a second floor house in the neighborhood. And I think Pet Shu, which is the neighbor right behind me, his feedback was, okay, I like that design and I'm also planning to expand my house. I think he's also he's also targeting 26 2700 square foot because he has two boy also has his parents who come from China who live there part of the time part time during the year I think. And it's the same for the neighborhood across the street. I I haven't they were supposed think uh if they had any objection I talked to them again even yesterday to remind them that the meeting was today if they had any concern or any question probably uh this will be an opportunity to raise them and I haven't received any this the only feedback I receive was a thumbs up they they like the neighbor the devolution of neighborhood they like the fact that the neighborhood is getting See? Yes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Um I have one more com question. Sorry. Um just about that, you know, the picture that Commissioner Stump just showed. I was just wondering like the materials. We don't have like a you know full materials list and you know page. Sometimes we get the like specific um and I was just wondering the front like the facade that entryway it looks like it's covered in like a different stone. Is that the you know what's the plan? And then does it match what is around that Juliet balcony or Okay. So, we're we're thinking of doing a stone with uh either travertine or some kind of a beige warm color stone to kind of uh add an inviting feel to the entry

with the same material being the borders. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Um Okay. So, [snorts] we will now Thank you very much. Appreciate all of the answers to the questions. Um, we will now close the public portion of the public hearing on item number five. And I invite commissioners to ask questions of staff and then eventually propose some sort of motion. Um, I'm just going to kick it off. Um, as someone that lives in this neighborhood, I do, um, you know, this tract that was developed along, um, in this area. um these homes. I've been in multiple of these homes when they have come gone on the market recently and um have talked to other people that live in some of these homes or have lived in them in the past and it is they are track homes. They are not like you know these beautiful historic ranch houses and there are a lot of places in the town of Lascatus where looking at and fitting into the surrounding neighborhood is like you know a really important part of our community design guidelines. But I the intent is not to build a like poorly built like to require people to build like replace homes with poorly built ranch homes that have no character. I mean I also I'm not you know trashing on ranch homes. I live in a ranch and I love it. But my rancho home is was not is not part of this the same development. And so I think that you know it is it says a lot that there are no we got no public input. We have no neighbors coming here tonight saying like I have a problem with this too story and you know those of us that have served on the planning commission for quite some time have definitely dealt

with many of these things. I mean it's a little bit of like even PTSD from when I was like oh my god we have something on Browns Lane. Like what's going on over here? We've had like a couple of things over there that have been very contentious. So, I really do think that that says a lot about this property and I do appreciate the changes that were made based on the recommendation from the consulting architect. I mean, at the end of the day, the architect said reducing the scale of the tall entry to blend better with other homes in its immediate neighborhood, addressing other inconsistencies, etc. But it really, you know, the tall entry and that was addressed with the changes to the, you know, the removal of the roof and I think that the proposed change was better than the recommendations by Canon. I I think that it reduced the bulk and mass. Sorry, we're closed public comment, but so, um, I think that, um, I would like to hear what, you know, our my fellow commissioners think about this project at this point, but it's a non-conforming lot. There are many multiple two-story houses within the neighborhood and I this like the architecture style. This is a changing neighborhood. Like there is a full full modern like fully modern house right down the street. There's multiple homes that have been rebuilt. Even like as far as we're talking about Karin Drive, there's like it's just a hodgepodge of architecture at this point. It doesn't have a specific character. It's a changing neighborhood and every time um a new house is being, you know, either demolished and rebuilt or added on, it's great that this is like I I mean I appreciate the addition

and not a you know million square foot basement. Um and I think that it like you know fits in with the I I mean I don't think there's a neighborhood to like necessarily fit in fit in with in that sense. So, um that being said, I I don't have a problem with the architectural style or the um fact that it is being remodeled not to look like the houses on either side. But I am curious to hear what my other commissioners have to say about some of the changes that they made in response to the consulting architecture architect's concerns. Commissioner Bernett,

I just want to make a comment. I I don't think there's any pro I don't think there's a problem with trying to maintain a more of a modest neighborhood of modest homes for our families that could only afford a modest home. Um so in this neighborhood, I drove through the whole thing. My girlfriend used to live right down the street when I was in school. Um, these are modest homes and it's a little project that has been like that and I I just feel that based on what our staff recommended recommendation was, which is not a recommendation for the home and because it's so out of character with the neighborhood, it's it um it doesn't even try to be similar to the other homes. And driving around, I didn't see a lot of two-story homes. I found I saw two and they were um they were what what you call a partial second and I did not see any Mediterranean homes in that neighborhood. But as far as um you know, my feeling is is this is a modest neighborhood and I think what we're trying to do in this town is try and maintain more of um more of that style of home so that we can accommodate families that aren't super wealthy or that have a moderate income. So I sort of come from that angle as well. But I just think this home I mean it is really it is a beautiful home. I I really I I like the style, but I just I just feel that it's not appropriate there in that culde-sac. I think it makes it's very prominent. It stands out and I just don't I don't think it's appropriate for that neighborhood. So, that would be my feeling.

Commissioner Barnett,

well, add some comments. Uh first, it's not unusual for us to see a neighborhood in transition in this town. Um there are a lot of older homes that um are not serving the needs of the community um with larger families and uh children returning from college and whatnot. Uh I think it's reasonable to expect that there will be larger homes and that one will be the u the icebreaker. Uh, I don't think that the two-story home to the right of this property is uh an inspiring design to say the least. Um, I think uh it is notable that uh the project meets the objective standards of the town code. Um, and the staff feels that it's uh in compliance with the residential design guidelines for single family residents not located in the hillside area. Um the mass and bulk issue I think is adequately addressed by the recommendations of the consulting architect in the September report. Uh and I would lean towards a motion that um approved the project if those two changes were made. It sounds like the applicant is flexible on the on the grids for the windows. Uh, and I think that the argument about having more bulky windows to accommodate the additional 4 in is a reasonable concern and I would not be uh inclined to impose that on the on the u owner. So, uh I I think that's the the substance of my comments. Um, we're going to see this again and again with property values being what they are in the town and it's

to be expected and um, I think if there's going to be an icebreaker, it ought to be a nice design like we see in this project. Commissioner Sordy.

Um, yeah, I guess I'll just chime in. I when I go through this neighborhood, when um I look at the surrounding homes, all the architecture, I I don't feel like there's anything sacrosanked or a style or pattern that we're really trying to preserve here. Um I am really really um sympathetic to the challenges of people who buy into Lascatos and then have a family and need to have more space and especially people nowadays who are working from home. So I think those are all compelling arguments. I am inclined probably more often than not to lean in that direction to let people do what they want for the most part with their homes. I think that they did make a obviously they're consistent with all the objective uh standards. They did make a pretty good effort to address the comments from the consulting architect. One and four were addressed um says they partially implemented um the recessed window. So anyway, um I guess I'm kind of heading in the direction of the chair and um Commissioner Barnett in the sense that I think we can and if there's a motion that's going to evolve here that um involves them making a couple key changes that Commissioner Barnett mentioned, I would be inclined to support approval. Commissioner Mayor.

Sure. I'll just echo what the last two said. I I agree. Um, you know, it conforms with all the zoning uh regulations. I'm less concerned about the the like the square footage number and the twotory height. I think, you know, as long as it's complying with the zoning, then it's fine. I I do agree actually. I think the consulting architect did a really good job here with uh the comments. So, um I think part of the reason maybe this is reading as somewhat bulky is because there is an addition at the front. Typically, a lot of times you see additions in the rear, but looking at the shape of the site, it's it's an interesting wedge-shaped site. So, the opportunities for expansion and addition are are challenging. I'm sympathetic to to that. So, uh, I'm inclined to follow what Commissioner Barnett said, but with, uh, adding that, you know, please take into consideration the consulting architect's comments. Is there anything like spec I mean specific that you feel like there changes their changes on that page that they didn't address that you feel like we should you know add to a condition of approval or modify?

Yeah, I liked what the architect did say about the the the lights or the grids, you know, that reflect this style. Maybe they don't have to be exactly as the uh consulting architect drew, but something to give it a little more uh I guess break up the bulk a bit. Um I'm not just this is more a personal subjective thing but the it seems a bit odd to have so many arches above above uh the openings like at the front entry it might make sense but then above I think doing something you know more more orthagonal or flat would just make it a little more harmonious and yeah I think there are little tweaks here and there. I don't want to get too much into it, but I I I generally I think it's going in the right direction. So, uh I don't want to I don't want to hold them up if if we're working toward a motion here.

Commissioner Bernett. Uh I would like to make a motion to uh see if we can reach a consensus if I may.

So, my motion is to approve the application by taking the following actions. U making the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt under SQUA 15301. I can make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of chapter 29 of the town code. I can make the findings that the project complies with the town residential guidelines for single family residents not located in the hillside area. Um, I would move that the issue of the divided lights be u a matter that's referred to the staff for consultation with the owner and I can make the considerations under 292150 of the town code for granting approval of an architectural and site application and approve architectural and site application S25052 uh with the conditions contained in exhibit 3 and the development plans in exhibit nine.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Sordy.

Thank you, Commissioner Sort seconds. And any discussion? Um I would just like to add that I think the um like following the town code with or like you know abiding by the town code with regards to FAR setbacks you know building coverage, parking, height is like goes a long way because we have definitely seen a number of projects where that is not the case and it is much harder to make decisions about those. So, um I do appreciate that and um I think that that has, you know, allowed me to be supportive of this motion especially because about the the changing aspects of the neighborhood. So, um I will now call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And opposed. And the motion passes 5 to one. Are there appeal rights?

Thank you, chair. Anyone who's not satisfied with the planning commission decision can appeal that decision to the town council. Forms are available online in the clerk's office. There's an appeal or a fee for filing the appeal and the appeal must be filed within 10 days.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, we will now I mean we're not going to take a full break, but we do need to wait a moment for someone needs to go get Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Burch. is back with us. And that was our last um item during the public for public hearings, but we do have some other business to attend to. And this is item six on the agenda, which is to select a chair and vice chair for the rest of this year. And I move to nominate uh vice chair Burch to be our next chair. She's been a really great vice chair, provided a lot of support and advice and run many meetings for us. So, I'm confident that she will be great at that. Can I have a second, please? Commissioner Stump. Thank you. Any

discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And it passes unanimously. So, congratulations. You are now chair. So, there you go. Awesome. You knew I was going to say first. You started the green part.

All right. [laughter] All right. So, now I will nominate for vice chair. And I would move to nominate Commissioner Barnett as vice chair. I believe that he has some very steady leadership. Um he is um asks very good insightful questions, leads conversations well and I think that he will be a huge asset in this year. I think we have some applications coming up that will need that. So that is why you on a date? Yes. [laughter] Okay. Is there a second?

Emily, thank you. Um All right, then I'll call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously. All right. Um now we move Yeah, we now move on to the report from the director of community development, Director Pollson. Is there anything to share?

Thank you. Happy New Year. Hope everyone enjoyed the holidays. Um, welcome back, Commissioner Mayor. U, I only have one item which was referenced in uh, verbal communications last night. The planning commission or the town council, sorry, town council uh, discussed the north 40 uh, that was recommended by the planning commission. Um, ultimately they approved the project with some modified conditions and a couple add few additional conditions. Um, so that will be moving forward. Um, and that's all I have.

All right. Thank you. Um, have there been any other committee meetings? I don't think so. So, I don't think there's any U committees to report. So, um, I would like to thank Emily for uh, guiding us through this year. We've had some interesting applications and I think you have just done an exemplary job. So, thank you. Uh, with that, meeting adjourned.