Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

test.

Welcome to the city of Mil Peters Planning Commission meeting on April 8th, 2026. Uh, it's time for the pledge of allegiance. 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 and justice for all. May I ask our recording secretary, Miss Medina, to kindly take the roll call, please?

Yes. Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners, staff, and community members. I will take attendance starting with Commissioner Castillo. Hi. Thank you. Commissioner Brown here. Commissioner Kulkins here. Commissioner was here. Commissioner Golong is absent this evening. Vice Chair Kong here. And Chair Gupta, I here. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next. Next is conflict of interest declaration. I request attorney cre who is uh uh like right now uh going to ask questions remotely. So attorney creatur are you there? Thank you chair. I ask the chair and each member of the mas plan commission whether he or she has any financial or personal conflict of interest related to any of the items on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Castillo. No. Commissioner Brown. No. Commissioner Caulkins. Yes.

Commissioner. Oh, do you want to disclose or does he need to disclose why um uh city attorney Creech? Yes. If I understand correctly, Commissioner Culkins, you have a conflict on the uh hillside item because of the proximity of property own. Is that correct? That is correct. Then with that disclosure to prevent any appearance of impropriy I'd recommend that you recuse yourself from that matter in which case just step off the dis when that item is called. Understood. Thank you. Commissioner was none. Vice Chair Kong? None. And Chair Gupta? None.

Thank you. I further ask the chair and each member of the Milas plan commission to please disclose any campaign contributions of $100 or more received within the last 12 months remain the parties entering into contract with the city on tonight's agenda or contributions received from development project applicants for development projects on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Castillo none. Commissioner Brown none. Commissioner Kulkins none. Commissioner was none. Vice Chair Kong, none. And Chair Gupta, none. Thank you. And with the disclosure made by Commissioner Culkins, uh, other than that, no report conflicts. Thank you very much, Chair.

Next item is approval of the agenda uh for today's meeting. So, may I request uh can I make a motion to approve tonight's meeting agenda? I can second that. Commissioner Castillo, I Commissioner Brown, I need to abstain. I wasn't here last week. Is that correct? No, this is for today. Oh, for today. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Kulkins. I. Commissioner was I.

Vice Chair Kong. Um, I need clarification because I remember seeing an email about an item being postponed. So, um, the approval of the agenda is excluding that item, right? Commissioner, sorry, Vice Chair Kong, my understanding is that the staff is going to recommend continuing that item with approval, but that can be done at the time the item is called. Okay, then I for me. Thank you, Chair Gupta. Thank you.

Item is approval of the minutes for March 25th, 2026. Um, and I have a motion to approve the minutes of March 25th meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for the March 25th, 2026 meeting. There second. I second that. Thank you. Call please. Commissioner Castillo. Hi. Commissioner Brown. Abstain. Commissioner Culkins. I.

Commissioner Oasi. Abstain. Vice Chair Kong. Abstain. And Chair Gupta. Hi. Thank you.

So, we don't have we we don't have a um majority for that. Um a quick clarification for the members who chose to abstain. Um one of the clarifying amendments that we made when the uh commission bylaws came through was to clarify the rule which is is the rule of law that any commissioner is not required to abstain from voting on mints merely because they were not present at the meeting previously. If they have sufficient information to believe that the mans are true and accurate to the best of their knowledge and understanding, they're allowed to vote on that item either in for or against the item. Okay. Uh, anybody wants to change from abstain to I?

I could I could do the roll call again. Okay. Commissioner, um, go ahead. Technically, the motion failed. So, if there would be another motion and a second, then you could take another vote with that clarification. So, I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 25th, 2026. I I approve it. No, we need a second. Oh, I'm sorry. I second that. Yes. Commissioner Castillo, I. Commissioner Brown, I. Commissioner Culkins, I. Commissioner was abstain.

Uh, Vice Chair Kong Epstein and Chair Gupta. Thank you. We do have a quorum now. All right. So now, are there any announcements from the planning commissioners? First, any announcements? If not, announcement from um Yeah. Uh Mr. Lee, no.

I just want to thank uh attorney Chris uh he's on vacation and for joining us today. So, thank you very much uh for your dedication and service. Thank you, Attorney Chris. Mr. Lee, any announcement? Just a brief reminder that our next uh planning commission meeting is scheduled for April 22nd. Um so two Wednesdays from now uh same time, same place here at city hall. The chambers at 7:00 p.m. Uh that is all. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Sorry, one more announcement. Thank you. Um we also have the um the city holds this uh commissioner's recognition celebration every year and there is a recognition dinner uh next Thursday. Um so I believe an email has been sent out with the flyer and all the details are there. Um but just a reminder if you haven't RSVPd I believe tomorrow is the last day and you're also able to bring one guest. Um so it's just a good opportunity to celebrate um the service and the dedication from all our commissioners. Um so it's just a yeah good opportunity to be recognized and to have a nice meal. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Going to ask about the menu but I won't. Okay. Next item is public forum. Um, members of the public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on today's agenda. Comments will be limited to 3 minutes or less at the chair's discretion. When called to speak, you are encouraged to state your name for the record. As an item not listed on the agenda, no action can be taken. However, the planning commission may instruct the staff to place the item on a future muting agenda. Miss Medina, is there any item public forum?

There are no public speaker cards for the public forum. Okay. All right. Next, we move on to public hearing. Item number 9-1, site development amendment, 1321 Terra Vista Court. May I request the project planner Randy B to make the presentation, please? Pardon me. Well, I'm going to ex recuse myself for this, so excuse me.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Caukins. Okay, M is Randy B making the presentation.

Okay. Uh yes. Uh thank you, Chair Gupta. Um and good evening uh commissioners and members of the public. My name is Randy Bayas, associate planner with the city of Midas. The item before you is a request for a site development amendment to develop a new single family residence located in the Hillside Combining District at 1321 Terra Vista Court. The applicant is requesting a site development permit amendment to deviate from the approved designs under planning permit SD22-000013 for a new single family home and to construct a 5,840 ft single family residence on a vacant 1.1 acre site. Because the project site is located in the single family hillside zoning district, this application will require recommendation from the planning commission and approval from the city council. Next slide. This is an aerial image of the project site and it is located in the northeastern portion of the city uh just to the west of the Bay View Golf Club. The property is part of the countryside estates subdivision uh which is a community with a homeowners association. This subdivision includes six lots including one that is an open space parcel uh which is located immediately west of the project site. Next slide please. This is the zoning map of the property. The project site and neighboring properties are all zoned R1H for single family residential hillside and the general plan land use designation of all surrounding properties is also hillside low density. The home is located east of

the crest line which is shown in the bold line um where two-story homes are permitted up to a maximum height of 27 ft. This is an aerial image of the project site um that shows planned unit development 68, also known as Countryside Estates. Uh and here's an exhibit showing the four lots uh shown specifically for Terapistic Court. Uh Terra Vista Court has a moderate incline with lot four uh near the bottom. That's uh the project site at the corner of Country Club Drive and rising up in elevation to lot one at the top. Uh there is also uh the open space parcel that is part of PUD68 shown on the left. Next slide. Uh planning staff has created this exhibit to provide context for the development of the area. Other projects along Terraveista Court also range from 5 to 6,000 square feet in size and also have similar building heights. Uh lot one was uh fairly recently denied by city council. However, lot two and three have been approved and construction drawings are under review. And this is lot four which was previously approved by the plan commission in December of 2023. Next slide. And here we have a site plan of the proposed project. The home faces east towards Terapistic Court, which you can see here to the right. The lot adjacent to the left is the large preserved hillside open space that I had mentioned previously. And the law is approximately 1.1 acres, which allows for a maximum of 8,000 square feet of imperous surface

coverage. And approximately 7,600 square ft is proposed. Uh the building layout is shown here in red. The uh future detached accessory dwelling unit or ADU is shown in green. And then in blue is the outdoor patio. Next slide, please. Here's the floor plan of the proposed first floor. This will include the attached twocar garage leading to the mudroom, and um other open area. This floor will also include an office, a media room, a recreation room, and a video game room. And the front entrance uh will be in the middle of the residence and will open up into a living room area on the second floor. With the updated zoning code, the required parking for the proposed residence is four spaces and the proposed project includes uh two enclosed as shown in the garage here and then three parking spaces accessed from the driveway for a total of five spaces. And here's the upper half floor plan, which features a family and living room, a dining room and a kitchen, a pantry, four bedrooms, and a primary bedroom along with six bathrooms. And as mentioned previously, there would be u a detached accessory dwelling unit uh to the right of this site um which would be approved through a separate application.

These images show the front and rear elevations and height at different levels. And uh the proposed residence will be maximum height to the top of the roof as measured from the lowest finished grade at 26 feet and 10 12 in. uh two chimneys are located slightly above this height uh but are exempted from the height requirements per zoning code section uh C250 per height exceptions. Next slide. And here's a proposed conceptual rendering with colors um of the proposed residence. The project is designed in a contemporary chateau style. Uh as some commissioners uh may remember, the design is very similar to the previously approved site development permit. Um the home still incorporates strong lines and a mixture of high quality and earth tone color materials. The overall color scheme uh will still be a light taupe soft white trim um and brown window trims. The exterior materials include painted stucco, stone veneer, and they still have a standing seam metal roof with metal and stained wood accents. The colors and materials proposed are complimentary to the character of the rural neighboring residences, but will also add to the diversity of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. Here are some of the proposed landscaping details. A site visit was conducted and confirmed the site is still a vacant dirt lot. There are no trees or shrubs where the proposed new residents will be located and therefore no trees will be moved from the site. The proposed landscaping in relation to the size of the lot is still minimal. Includes uh

several trees and various shrubs and perennials, all of which are low to moderate water use. And overall, the proposed landscaping still meets the intent of the hillside ordinance. Next slide. Here's a copy of the civil plans along within an approximate area of where the building footprint will be located. Uh, Miss Medina, if you click once. Thank you. Uh due to the sloped lot and vehicular access requirements, the applicant has requested that the site be graded in order to make the site feasible for residential development. In order to do this, the applicant has located the home on the flattest portion of site while meeting the PUD's minimum front yard setbacks. In addition, the rear yard entry is located on the second floor to reduce the amount of grading. Um however due to the proximity of the crest line the project will result in 4,160 cubic yards of cut and 490 cubic yards of fill. Um however it is important to note that no grading is proposed in the crestline zone of protection which would be the area west of the crest line. Uh per the uh municipal code section B22.180-d3 the development plan with grading in excess of 1500 cubic yards uh specifically requires planning commission review and recommended approval or denial to the city council. If approval is recommended, such conditions as are reasonably necessary may be included. Next slide. And on this slide, I wanted to summarize the main hillside development standards the project needs to meet. This is also

table three in the attached staff report. The proposed residence will be one and a half stories with a max height of 26 feet and 10 and 1/2 in and will be 5,840 square ft in size, which is approximately 900 square ft larger than the previous development permit, but is still below the hillsides development standards of a 6,000 square foot maximum size. And the applicant was able to meet uh these requirements while maintaining the same building footprint by changing the interior layout of the previously proposed attached accessory dwelling. But the applicant team can uh speak about that in their presentation. Uh the proposed total impervious surface will be 7,661 square ft which will still be compliant with the maximum allowance of 8,000 square ft. And in summation, the proposal is still consistent with all development standards for the hillside zoning ordinance. As part of the requirements of the hillside zoning ordinance, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the section to preserve the natural quality of the crest line and the slopes as viewed from the valley floor. Uh this applicant has demonstrated compliance by providing three diagrams in the project plans and the next slide will include a sectional view to demonstrate the house will not be visible from uh two of the viewpoints on the valley. An exception may be granted where development would not be visible from the three closest viewpoints. Uh the nearest uh viewpoints for this residence are 2, three, and four. And this uh graphic is highlighting that the proposed house will be on the other side

of these hills. Um and the applicant installed story poles um along the setback perimeter and took pictures from these areas to demonstrate the project will not be visible from the valley floor. Therefore, it's compliant with the crest line zoning protection. Next slide. And this image further demonstrates uh in a sectional view that the proposed house will not be visible from the valley floor. Um, in other words, if you were to stand from these viewpoints looking up towards the hillside, an existing hill would block views of the proposed house from the valley floor. And this was confirmed by the story pole test. And although the top rung of the story poles was slightly visible from viewpoint 4, this only represents the setback line, the house itself will not be visible from the valley floor. Next slide. and staff has confirmed that the project meets the findings associated with the site development permit as set out in the um pedestas municipal code. Those findings have been discussed in the staff report and are addressed in the resolution and staff has also confirmed that the project meets the findings for specific projects associated with site development permit and those findings have also been discussed in the staff report and resolution. Next slide. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act or SQUA in accordance with SQA guidelines section 15303 for new construction or conversion of small

structures and section 15183 for projects consistent with the community plan, general plan or zoning. Next slide. A notice was published in the Militus Post and at city hall for the project as well as the city's website and online public forum. 18 postcards were sent to the property owners within 300 ft of the site. Uh no comments have been received to date. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission open and close the public hearing and adopt resolution 26 26-007, recommending the city um recommending the city council approved the site development permit amendment number SA25-00003 to allow the development of a single family residence in the R1H single family residential Central Hillside zoning district subject to the findings and attached conditions of approval. This concludes staff summary of the project. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Furthermore, the project's applicant team um is also available for any questions and has a brief presentation as well. Thank you.

Did you say there's any presentation from the owner or the applicant team? Yes. Secretary Medina, are they online? Okay.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. left. Okay, we can hear you.

Awesome. My name is Isabelle Gamo and I'm going to be discussing the proposed residence at 1321 Terra Vista Court and I'm going to focus this presentation on what has changed from the previously approved design. Can you scroll to the next slide? So here we have the uh setbacks and floor areas of what was previously approved compared to what is now being proposed. And as you can see the setbacks are the same as what was previously approved. The only difference is uh there is a slight reduction in the seconds story right side setback. And this is because there was a small pool bath added on on the second story uh rear right side. And I'll show that in a later slide when we get to the floor plans. In terms of the floor areas, um it's pretty consistent uh amongst the two uh proposed plans. The main difference that accounts for the difference in square footage of the second floor is the fact that there was previously an attached ADU on the second story and this area has now been converted to living area for the main home and the ADU is now proposed to be detached. Um otherwise we've kept it within the visible footprint of the home. Next slide please. Um and so here we have the elevations. On the top is what was previously approved and on the bottom is what we are now proposing. Uh you can see that the plate heights are the same as what was previously proposed and the height is about an inch and a half shorter than what was previously proposed. In terms of the style and massing, it is consistent with the previously approved design. Uh the main updates have been aesthetically or to um work with functional updates in terms of the

interior floor plan and adjustments of the windows. Next slide, please. Uh in terms of the exterior materials, they are consistent in terms of uh quality and aesthetics of what was previously proposed. The roofing and windows and doors are the same. And then the exterior stone has been updated, but the overall tones of the stone are consistent with what was previously approved. Additionally, the entry door and garage door have been updated as well. And then the exterior sconce is updated for the painted stucco. Um, it is a slightly different shade. Um, but it overall consistent with the original design intent. And then we also have an accent stucco color here. Next slide please. So here is the first floor plan. Uh and you can see the main difference is there is no longer that secondary staircase that was um used to access the second story attached ADU. Uh additionally we have filled in the area that was previously crawl space adjacent to the stairway. Um, this would not be visible at all from the exterior and would have previously been pretty tall crawl space and now um is being used as kind of basement living space. Additionally, we have unconditioned mechanical storage space uh to the rear of the garage on the right hand side. Uh, and this is under the second story courtyard area that previously would have also been um pretty tall crawl space. Uh and then you can see the detached ADU uh on the right hand side. Next slide. Um here you can see the second floor plan. Um the second floor does exit at grade at the rear due to the steeply sloping nature of the lot. Um you can see that the attached ADU area is now uh

converted to living area but it it is within the exact same footprint as what was previously proposed. Um, you can just see that small addition of the pool bath on the rear right side, but otherwise all the changes happened within the footprint of the home. Next slide, please. Um, so as Randy mentioned, we did study the proposed site from these viewpoints. Um, next slide. And the previous design uh was compliant with the Crestline zone of protection. And so another thing that we've done here to illustrate it is we have the previous design shown in red ghosted over the updated design. So you can see that the updated design is actually uh more minimal um in terms of visibility as seen from the rear. Um so would actually be less visible um and not visible from the crustline zone of protection. Next slide please. Here is the proposed landscaping plan. Um most of these updates um had to do as well with some minor updates to the hardscape. One of those being an addition of a pool uh at the rear of the property. Um this is where the sunken fire pit was previously. Um you can see the upper portion of the lot as well as the cross zone of protection in the drawing on the upper right. And then you can see uh the proposed planting for the front of the property on the drawing on the lower right. Next slide. Uh here are some exterior perspectives um showing that the overall style of the house is consistent with what was previously uh approved. The updates have been um some small aesthetic updates and stylistic updates, but overall it is consistent with the previous design. Next slide.

Here you can see uh the rear where the pool was added in um in the two right hand images and then you can also see uh in the bottom left hand image that courtyard area that sits over that mechanical crawl space area. Next slide. Uh thank you. Okay, thank you very much for the presentations. I'd like to now invite any comments from the planning commissioners, questions or comments. Um, I have some questions but I ask in the end. So in the meantime, anybody else has any questions, comments? Uh maybe the vice chair can also wait a little bit. Let everybody else ask the questions first. So any questions please? No. Commissioner you have any questions?

Yeah. Uh uh the ADU uh there is not much specification about the ADU which was previous and which is now. So, can you just uh let us know more about the ADU?

Uh yeah, the ADU was previously proposed um attached on the second story uh which is why we had that staircase access. Um it's now proposed detached. Uh the reason we didn't focus on it so much is just uh since it's not a part of this review. Uh since it is exempt, we focus more on the main home. Um but we have nestled it into uh the hillside um as much as possible too. All right. Thank you. Vice Chair Kong, any questions?

Yeah. So my question is actually um in line with uh Commissioner Aasti. I wanted to understand why um you were saying that the detach ADU um is going to be a separate application. Um is and you mentioned something about it being exam. So maybe Randy can you please help us understand um is it being exam because uh it's going to follow like a ministerial um streamline process at that it won't come back to planning commission or it will come back to us at a later date. Um yeah, you're exactly right. Um that type of ADU, the detached ADU would be exempt from the planning application. So uh it would not go back to planning commission.

Okay. Um and since we have seen the rendering of the exterior as well as the floor plan that is including the detach ADU. So as we consider today's um resolution, do we have to keep that in mind as well that that section of the lot will be developed?

I think it provides some context. Um but I would leave it up to city attorney to say whether or not that would uh lean towards the decision attorney. You have a question. It was for attorney.

So the um it is the right of an applicant to apply uh for an ADU separate and apart from a planning entitlement. So um issues having to do with that ADU and whatever the application is um would be taken up with um in the application that they make later. Um what's presented before um the plan commission tonight is what's before you. Um the context might be meaningful to you, but it's um ultimately whether they can build that ADU and it's proprietary with whatever decisions the plan commission makes tonight will be a later decision consistent with the law. Yeah, I asked this because when I look at this um floor plan, um the setback between the lot line and the detached ADU is looks pretty tight. So that's why you know if you say that this is going to be a decision that is made separately, so we should not even look at that, right? We should just consider the main um dwelling and the and the setback from the lot line. Is that correct? That's correct. So when they apply for that ADU, there are certain laws that might apply that reduce the setback. Um it depends on the application and ultimately those issues will be taken up when that application is made and comes forward for approval. Um but that will be a separate process than tonight's decision.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for the clarification. And if I could add a little bit more info um for some uh assurance uh the minimum building separation requirement which is not just a planning requirement but also a building and fire requirement is 6 ft from um these buildings. So we'll at least have 6 ft there. Any more questions? Okay. So um let me ask you a few questions. First of all, I I kind of drive through that area practically every day. Um I see here there are two two vehicles parked outside more like a temporary gate. Uh so I don't know what those two vehicles are doing. It looks like there some kind of guards or something. What's going on there? I mean, are there anybody living in that neighborhood? Even several lots were approved some time ago. I could try to give a little info um unless the applicant or architect has some more context. I I don't think I know who those people are, but um in terms of like the status of the development um Randy might know a little more, but uh there's four lots and I believe some of them they've been entitled, some of them built. Um, so perhaps it's related to some other properties, but I don't know, Randy, you have a little bit more recent information on where those projects are at.

Um, yeah, most of the entitlements. Actually, Mike, Caukins, Commissioner Caukins knows the answer. He he has one of those lots. So, is it okay for him to answer? I would I would recommend the sense he's recused himself to not. Oh, okay. Um, all right. It's not it's not a critical question. I was just curious more than anything else. I mean, I just see there uh those vehicles parked there. Uh, but anyway, let me move on to the uh real questions.

Well, and I could provide a little general information. Um, so any public road like our rules is that a car cannot park there for more than three consecutive days. Um, so, uh, not just that neighborhood, but any neighborhood. We we hear that a lot from residents when they notice a car has been there like idle for that long. Um, that's something that we can also address through our code enforcement. Um, but anyways, yes, we can also address that offline if need.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, also, uh, are you also applying for the fence? I mean, it's better to apply for the fence now as part of the overall permit rather than applying separately later on. I mean it's not clear to me whether fence is already covered or not. Uh yeah we are showing it as part of the application is that uh what type of fence is it?

So um we have kind of two types of fences. Um but uh we at the front of the property um is more of a uh kind of metal and low stucco wall fence. Um but then at uh kind of the sides of the property is more of a natural fence as it gets towards the rear. So Mr. Lee, you want to address that because uh the city ordinance requires the fence to be a wooden fence which I'm not necessarily in favor. I think iron fence is more elegant and more practical.

And I'm glad you brought up and asking the question whether it's part of this application. um because nonwooden fences do require planning commission approval. So a lot of times um this the typical um I guess process or project has included uh the fence with the building of the home which I think is a good idea so you don't have to come back just for a non wooden fence.

Yeah, we both know how much it costs for a permit fee if they have to add fence later on. Almost 20 more than $20,000. But um uh so right now the fence the iron fence in the front you're saying is part of the application. So that'll be one of the u exceptions um that we'll have to uh vote on. But I as I said I I think iron fence goes well with the the overall architecture and of this beautiful house. So I don't personally don't have any issue with that. So um let me move on to uh the next question. Um so talking about the uh crest line um and you mentioned that uh there is some exception there which you didn't I didn't quite understand uh the there are three viewpoints VP2 VP3 and VP4 and but this the story poll you have to first of all explain to me what story poll is it showed that uh one section does intrude into the sighteline but but you're still saying it's not visible. So can you please explain this contradiction? Uh yeah so the study that we did had these um story poles which you can see are these kind of tall vertical poles with this flag rope going along them and we actually had this at the setback line. So, we wanted to understand if the entire buildable area was potentially not visible from these viewpoints. Um, and so there was a small corner of uh the top of the flag rope which we had set as kind of the the max height that would be possible that was visible from the floor. But we have the house set

back even further from this setback line. And we also um have it lower than this height line where it is set back further. Um so we had some other studies that were shown during the initial um approval and um the main study during this approval that we did was to show that the updated design was actually less intrusive uh because we did kind of push back the roof a little bit there. Um, but hopefully that um explains how kind of the a portion of the the setback area was visible, but the house is pretty far set back from that setback area, if that makes sense.

What What exactly is the story pole? Again, I didn't quite get that. in that top right hand image there um you can see those vertical poles with the flag rope. Um so th those represent the story poles. Um so uh those were set back along the setback lines. Um so kind of to show um maximum possible buildable area. Uh and then they were put at um increments of starting at um the maximum possible height and then working down in increments so that we could understand just how visible or unvisible the site was from those viewpoints.

And chair if I may um it might have a legal context as well.

Yeah, please go ahead. Uh so the way that the ordinance is written is that for properties east of the crest line um they need to submit at a minimum a set of crosssections showing that the structure does not protrude above the top of the crest line. In this instance when they did those cross-sections there was one point on the structure that would protrude above the top of the crest line. In that instance, then what they need to show is that the property would not be visible from the three clo three closest of a number of designated points in the city. And the way that most applicants do that is through the test that they've shown here where they erect poles with guide wires showing the heights of the structure. Um, so that you essentially have a phantom structure and then they go physically to the locations specified in the ordinance and taking photographs up. they show you can't actually see those poles. So while the crosssection may be higher than the crest line, it is not visible from the valley floor and therefore is compliant with the ordinance. What the ordinance says is that that set of facts should be presented to the decision maker uh to show compliance with the ordinance.

Thank you. That that was uh yeah I think I understand it enough. Um so next question relates to uh looks like this project requires 4,160 cubic yards of cut but the threshold is 1500. So why is uh looks like you're saying this grading is considered minimal disruption under general plan policies. So can you explain that why is this minimal? I mean it looks like 4160 versus 1500 is a big gap. Yeah. So, um due to the steeply sloping nature of the lot, uh we had to nestle the home into the hillside and that is why uh you enter the home at the first floor at the front of the property, but you exit the home at the second floor at the uh rear of the house. Um and so rather than trying to make this a full two-story home where you would exit the from the first floor at both the front and the rear, um the grading is done uh in order to account for that area of the home itself. And we did locate it on um the flattest portion of the site that is within the setbacks. Um so that is that's kind of the main reasonings is we it was a difficult site. Um but given the constraints uh we did kind of all that we could in order to minimize that grading.

So Mr. Lee or Mr. B is there is that uh going to cause any kind of a problem considering this um um gap?

Uh chair Gupta I think that's a fair question. Um, so I think what what happens is with hillside projects, you're kind of toggling or you're you're kind of uh looking at both the grading but also the visual impacts. Usually typically if you want to minimize the visual impacts, it requires some more grading. If you want to minimize the grading, it results in greater visual impacts. So as staff, we always try to find a balance. I think in this situation, what is unique about this property is that it's very close to the crest line. Um, so I think that's um part of the reason why it's worth uh allowing for some additional grading to be out of view. Um, if it were further, then I don't think that would be as necessary or if it were on the other side of the crest crest line where you can be visible, then you wouldn't need to grade as much. Um, the other challenging part about this site is you'll notice there really aren't a lot of flat areas. Um, a lot of hillside lots at least have some portion of the site that is relatively flat. In this situation, if you look at the topography, it's fairly slope throughout the entire site. And I also understand that some of the grading is is required for the driveway as well, which you need for access. So, I think just given the overall context, um the kind of the greater level of grading than probably typically seen, I think you're right on that is perhaps u more warranted in this situation. Um but that's just our analysis just considering the context. um because it's there aren't a ton of properties like this, but it's it's very close to the crest line, but right on the other side.

Okay. Thank you. Uh and last question relates to the PUD. Um I understand that there was amendment approved on December 1st, 2023 for the PUD when I guess with the original application and uh uh so I understand the PUD 1992 standards were modified u because they were considered outdated. So uh the point is I understand uh the difference. Let me just point out what I read somewhere that uh the PUD68 specified threec car garage you're using two-car garage is specified 4,000 to 5,000 square ft of total allowable square footage using a lot higher than that or close to 6,000. Um so I guess my question is what criteria does the city use to determine when older PU's PUB standards should be overridden? That's another really good question, but I think that's the question that I probably need to answer. So, um, PODS are difficult because some PODS are written more generally where it allows for more evolution of design over time. Some PODS are very specific. I believe this POD they actually included elevations. So, it was very specific. So anything usually any project that deviates from that elevation requires a POD amendment. So not every POD like requires an amendment because there's some flexibility built in. This one um there is not much flexibility built in. Um and I would agree it's been a long time since the original elevations were approved. So that's something that we consider and we look at the best design practices of today compared to the ones in the past. Um so I think this is a unique PUD because it is from a long

time ago and because the elevations are so so detailed. Um for other PUDs in the city um we do try to stick to the original designs. Um and then even for them as well when they try to propose a new design for example like a modern design um I think if the like the the further you go away from the original elevations I think the harder it is to justify that it still fits in in line with the rest of the the design. So one of one of the other findings is that we want the home to blend in. Um so we do look at the existing homes as well like it's something that we can't discount but we also have to allow for some adaptability but that's also why an amendment is required so we can bring it to this body and um even the council and make um and make decisions. Um but it is it is somewhat of a discretionary um subjective I guess process to be honest. I don't know if that answer your question very well.

No it's good to see that flexibility. I'm not opposed to that. Um okay that those are the questions. Uh so at this point I mean I appreciate uh looks like a beautiful house and beautiful architecture you know it's quite impressive the um uh you know that patio on the second floor that looks very impressive. Um so with that u are we are there any more questions or comments before we uh close this item?

I I did want to revisit the metal fence. So, it was a great question. Um, I just want to make it very clear because typically when there's a metal fence, um, we we want to be very clear on what that deviation is because it is a deviation from the wooden fence. So, I just want to ask the applicant um if they can just provide more details about that fence like um and if we can somehow uh go I don't know if it's possible to go to any pages that point that show I I do believe it's on the plants um that show that metal fence and if if there can be some discussion about the material, the height, just more details so that we get it into the record so that if the planning commission were to approve it, it's based off of um full knowledge of what this deviation is. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. So, the the fence is um an iron fence at the front, but it does have um some low walls with um some columns in between. And this was uh you can see the grade and how it's sloping here. And this was to kind of break it up um kind of cleanly. And then we are proposing two columns flanking the uh front pedestrian gate. And these would have the same stone material that was proposed on the home. Another question is um uh the height that it's the maximum height for the fence. Uh let me double check that real quick. Um, I believe uh the columns themselves are the highest point. Um, and those columns are about 3 ft. Um and then the fence itself is set lower than that.

Yeah, I know in this situation because of the slopes the height varies greatly. So it's a little bit hard to calculate but I I think it is good to know um the highest point. So if the the posts at the highest point is 3 ft I think the um I do think the height is okay. However, um yeah, I I so there's also, you know, fences in the hillside are also required to be of open work and I can see that it's partially open and on the bottom portion is um partially closed. Are there um could you provide some information for why the design has why it's been designed that way? Uh yeah, the design um was this way um to we thought it was a bit more elegant in fitting with the style of the home itself. Um so we do have like the gates themselves are iron all the way down. Uh and we do have simpler fences along the sides. Um but we really wanted to create something that um is has a little bit more presence and brings in uh those columns um from the architecture itself. um and uh maybe provides a little bit more um it's a low height so not that much more privacy but um yeah works well with the style of the architecture it was mostly aesthetic reasons so just for the planning commission um fences are must be uh 75% transparent um looking at this fence Some of it seems to be greater than 75%, some of it seems to be obviously less than 75%. Um, so I think and the gate is clearly, you know, open the entire way through. Um, so that's I don't know if the applicant is ready to provide some sort of an estimate for what that transparency is. Another option that we have, I think there is discretion to approve it this way, but another option is adding a

condition of approval that requires it to be of open design if that's desired. So let me expand on that a little bit. First of all, um, you have a gate here, but doesn't seem to be a driveway. Is there a separate gate for the driveway for the cars to come in? Yeah, there's a separate gate on either side of the driveway. Um, so there's one on the right side and one on the left. Um, and it matches the style of the pedestrian gate shown here. It's just cropped out of this view. Okay. So, you have a picture of that gate or that part of the There maybe it must be a fence there too, right?

Yes. Let me see if there is an image in the presentation that shows that wide of an angle. So in it's in the planning package itself um there is uh a view that shows the driveway gate one of the driveway gates. It's on the A3.1 exterior perspectives page. Uh, also if you look on the exterior elevations A3.0A, you can see both of the gates.

Can we pull that up, please? Yeah, while um Liz is pulling it up, I have a question for Randy. So, in the prior approval um that was done back in 2023, did it include um the fences? Uh yes, it did. It did. Okay. So, is the design very similar? I mean I mean if it was priv previous previously approved and now the design really hasn't changed it would be good for us to be aware of it as well.

Yeah the design of the fence is also very similar. Randy, can you repeat that? I didn't hear if you were saying that the approval, the pre-approval was um with the gates as they are or is this different?

The previous design um was slightly different um but they were still very similar. So when you say there was slightly different, do you mean that the way that the um the bottom half of the gate is not kind of clear? It isn't you can't kind of see through it. Do you mean from that perspective or the overall design or the type of materials? What do you What do you mean? I meant the overall design, but I can um pull up a copy of the previous as well. And uh Secretary Medina, um the elevations the applicant was um referencing should be page 17. This looks like we're having tough time finding that particular side view of the gates because I understand the requirement for the g fence on the side should be the same as in the front, right? Is that right, Mr. Lee?

Not necessarily. Um, but I I think as Randy or um as we look at the previous approval, um I do want to clarify. I do think we have two options moving forward. Um the planning commission has the discretion to approve a fence that isn't totally open work like the 75% threshold or um the planning commission can just um uh we can add a condition of approval um that states that it must be of 75% open work and we can verify that during the building permit process like staff staff can verify that because the calculations right now I don't I don't think there are calculations that confirm whether it's 75% or not but it does appear to be some some percentage that's somewhat close so we can verify it if it requires a redesign we will ask the applicant to redesign it to make sure it meets that requirement so I think there's two options for how to address it or just if you if you're okay with the fence as is

understood so So looking at just the front fence, but that's the only thing that visible right now. In the front fence, it doesn't seem to be much of a fence. I mean, it's like more for decoration. It's too low. You can easily just uh you know, not only jump, you can just cross over it very easily. So it's not really true fence from that point of view. I mean, it's really just for decoration. So, I don't know if uh that bottom part which is not so visible or transparent or see-through that really affects anything because it's is still very low and you can practically see everything in the the front yard. But, um that's just my opinion. I don't know if anybody else has any other opinion.

Yeah, my personal opinion is that the front fence doesn't really affect any view from public spaces. is also like a private road that can only see that fence. So we have you know take into consideration that the only one that may be boarded by it is the few neighbors around them and we did not receive any comments. Yeah. And but that fence is so low you can really see everything above it. Right. Yeah. So it's aesthetic like you said is

so if it's 6 ft high and then 3 4 feet of uh uh you know some kind of stuckco I think then I can understand the problem but I don't see the problem directly. Uh uh seeing the side fence is important. That might be a lot higher than uh the city limit of uh what uh 4T something 4T 5 in or something. Five 4' 6 in in the front or the side? In the side. Oh, side is typically 6 feet. The front is 3 and 1/2. Oh, front is 3 and 1/2. Side is 6 ft. 6 feet. That tall. Okay. So, can we ask the question? Is the side fence less than 6 ft?

Yes, the side fence is less than 6 ft. Um, and right now it is it's about uh 5 ft. Oh, okay. And that's also a iron fence or is it uh something else? Uh, yeah, it is um an iron fence. Okay. Uh, but it doesn't have the low wall portion um that the front does. It's just open all the way. Okay. So, it does meet that 75% uh see-through um requirement, right?

Mhm. Yes. I see. Chair um Ry's going to share the plan set with you. I'm having trouble opening it cuz it's really large. So, I think he's able to open it on his end.

Okay. And we can take a quick look. I mean if he found it okay should be able to see my screen now. side view. No, I mean I can't see any driveway.

So, one driveway would be on this side. Huh? Oh, okay. Okay. The other driveway entrance would be on this side.

But that doesn't seem to be it's not clear if you see through. I see still see quite a bit of uh tuck at the bottom. Just this iron part is see-through part is just a little bit on the top. I think that is um because the image is a bit pixelated here, but the intent for the driveway gates would be similar to the pedestrian gate and that it would be um open all the way through. So um more than 75% open.

Okay. I just have a quick question. So when she says open, she just means these columns are are going to be there or not going to be there. I'm just trying to be clear. Uh sorry, by open I meant it would not have the the low wall uh beneath the iron. Yeah. Thank you. Does anybody have any any concern about this fence? Okay, there no more questions. Uh, can we have a motion? Sorry, chair. You um you still need public comment and then closing the public hearing.

Okay, Miss M. Liz, is there are there any public comments? Chair, we have no uh speaker cards for this item. Okay. So, u I'm I'm closing the public hearing. I understand the new bylaws, uh we don't need to take a vote on that. Is that true? That that's correct, chair. You can close the hearing once uh all facts have been gathered.

Okay. So, public hearings is closed. Uh now, let's see a motion about uh uh approving this uh project. Oh, can we see the U screen please with the uh Yes. So my sorry my question is are is the goal to approve u the plans with conditions for the fence or to approve them completely that is my question

u it's up to you the there are already what 58 conditions of approval but if you want to add some condition of approval you can approve based on additional condition of approval or you can say it's approved as is chair May I perhaps give some legal clarification? Yes sir.

So it sounds like from the facts deduced the height of the fence is compliant. It sounds like the parts in which it is not compliant which can be discretionarily approved is the uh open work nature of the spaces in between entrance points um are not meeting the 75% threshold. But um based on the facts seduced, you could in your discretion approve that if it was the plan commission's wish. There's also the materials issue, the use of masonry, stucco, and metal instead of uh wood in that area. And again, you can discretionarily approve those things. Um, if you did not want to discretionary approve any one of those deviations, um, then you could add a condition requiring the project the fence to be built in conformity with whichever condition you do not discretionarily approve.

Okay, thank you. Um, Randy, can we put that on the screen again, please? Okay. So, is there any motion with or without adding this condition of approval? Okay. Let let I'm I'm willing to uh make a motion without asking for any additional condition of approval. I think we can make the exception. Uh, so I make a motion to adopt resolution 26-007 recommending the city council approved the site development permit amendment number SA25-00003 to allow the development of a single family residence in the R1-H single family residential hillside zoning district subject to the findings and attached conditions of approval.

Is there a second please? I second that. Can we take a roll call, please? Commissioner Castillo, I. Commissioner Brown, I. Commissioner Wasi, I. Vice Chair Kong, I. And Chair Gupta, I. Thank you. and commissioner item is 9-2 and Mr. Lee has something to say about that. Oh, Attorney Creech, you have something to say.

Sorry, I was just saying that Commissioner Culkins is allowed to take his seat. He's back. Welcome back. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to item 9-2. Uh, Mr. Lee, I I think you want to postpone this, right?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Uh, this item, just to at least read what the item is about, um, is for a zoning map and text amendment for Senate Bill 79. Um, it applies citywide. It would be uh a city initiated zoning text and map amendment to amend the zoning ordinance to create a transit oriented development overlay district designated designating areas eligible for Senate Bill 79 height and density standards. Um and this would be exempt from SQA. Um however uh staff is requesting that the planning commission continue this item to April 22nd um because we want to provide additional notice of the hearing. Um so we are just requesting uh yeah for that continuance.

Um does it require a motion to continue this item or we can just uh move? It would it would require a motion and a second and a vote. Okay. So, can I have a motion to uh postpone this item to April 22nd as requested by Mr. Lee? I will make the motion to continue this item to April 22nd. I'll second. Commissioner Castillo I. Commissioner Brown. I. Commissioner Caulkins. I. Commissioner Aasti.

Vice Chair Kong. I chair Gupta. Thank you. New business. I understand there are no items for new business. Um, does anybody else have anything uh of new business they want to bring up? No. Okay. I'm supposed to read the statement now. Any person agreed by any final decision of any board, commission or department head to the city of Mal Petus may appeal the decision to the city council by filing written notice of the appeal with the city clerk within 12 calendar days of the date of the set decision and paying the required fee. The time this time limit shall be strictly enforced. Okay, now it's time to adjourn and understand doesn't require any vote anymore because of the new bylaws. So simplified. So at this point I adjourn the meeting. Thank you.