[0:05] All right.
This calls to order the Monday, August
[0:09] 31st, 2026 Fairway Planning Commission
meeting. First item of business is
[0:14] approval of the minutes for the meeting
held on July 27th, 2026. Is there any
[0:18] discussion or does someone want to make
a motion?
[0:23] [clears throat]
[0:26] » Is there a second?
>> Second. All those in favor?
[0:30] » I I
>> All right. Motion passes. Next item of
[0:33] business is item A, public old business.
Item A, public hearing continued from
[0:38] June 29th, 2026 for a site plan review
for 5815 Cherokee Drive. Uh we've been
[0:43] told that this has been pulled and we um
it's no longer on the agenda. Okay. So,
[0:48] moving on. Item three, new business.
Item A, site plan review for 6032
[0:53] Delmare Street, Fairway, Kansas. request
for new single family residents with
[0:56] exceptions to window hierarchy on left
and right elevations. Basel, will you
[1:00] please provide your report?
>> Yes, I'll let my report stand as
[1:04] submitted. Uh they will need part of uh
staff is not opposed to the application.
[1:11] Uh they do have the hierarchy issue on
the left and rear elevation and then
[1:17] they do need approval from city council
for the
[1:22] rideway tree
close to it
[1:29] for questions.
[1:33] » When you get a chance, will you pull up
drawing A2.2? I think it's the last one
[1:38] in the set.
[1:52] Uh, A2.2.
I think that might be it maybe.
[2:00] » Yeah. So, Basel, do you want to just
confirm which windows we're discussing?
[2:07] » Windows we're discussing.
[2:28] So the rear eleation has those three
windows, the smaller ones
[2:34] below it are the larger windows.
Any
[2:46] other questions for staff?
[2:53] » Okay. Any discussion on the plans or the
window hierarchy?
[3:05] » I don't have any comments to this. That
looks okay to me.
[3:13] » The same. Yeah, I'm good with that.
>> I agree.
[3:16] » Yeah. I' I'd like to um I'd like to make
a motion um to approve the um or the
[3:26] exception for left and right um
elevation facads to have the lower
[3:29] windows and upper windows not in
alignment.
[3:33] » Second.
>> And so conditions, right?
[3:36] subject to
>> subject. Yeah. Subject to stop
[3:38] conditions.
>> Was there a second?
[3:42] » I'll second.
>> All in favor?
[3:44] » I.
>> All right. Motion passes.
[3:48] » Next item of business is item B. Site
plan review for 5942 locked in lane,
[3:52] Fairway, Kansas. Request for a new
single family residence with exceptions
[3:55] to minimum 40ft front setback and window
hierarchy on the left elevation. Basel,
[4:00] will you please provide your staff
report?
[4:03] Again, I'll let my report stand as
submitted. U they are seeking uh the
[4:11] exception to line up the house with the
rest of the house which is at 35 ft.
[4:20] The hierarchy is for the left elevation.
Staff is not opposed to the application.
[4:33] Is the window hierarchy the one on the
right, that top right window?
[4:40] » Or I guess it's probably both top
windows.
[4:43] » It's It's the Yeah, the top windows.
[4:50] » Any other questions for staff?
[4:55] » Any discussion? Uh the applicant's here
too if we have questions for the
[4:59] applicant.
[5:23] I guess to confirm the setback is to
align with the adjacent properties
[5:27] » adjacent houses.
[5:34] » Any discussion?
[5:40] None. Does someone want to make a
motion?
[5:44] » I'll make a motion that we approve the
plans as submitted allowing the
[5:49] exception for the front setback in the
window hierarchy on the left side
[5:53] elevation subject to staff
recommendations.
[5:57] » Second.
>> All those in favor? I
[6:01] » All right. Motion passes.
[6:07] Next item of business is item C, site
plan review for 6114 Fontana Street,
[6:12] Fairway, Kansas. Request for a new
single family residence with exceptions
[6:15] to window hierarchy, right, left, and
front elevations. Basel, will you please
[6:19] provide your staff report?
>> Okay, I'll I'll let my report stand as
[6:22] submitted with just one modification.
The front elevation is is not a problem.
[6:29] Uh but the
right and left are as far as the
[6:36] exception for the hierarchy
and staff is not opposed to the
[6:40] application.
[6:47] » Any other questions for staff?
[7:02] What's the m or yeah maximum space you
can have without a window or door or any
[7:11] plane change
>> uh for a wall it depends on if it's uh
[7:16] two story or one story I think it's 600
600
[7:20] » that is just for architectural relief
there is a thing that says you have to
[7:23] have a certain number of windows within
a square footage it's just the
[7:27] percentage for that entire facade
Okay. But was is there something for
[7:31] architectural relief? You can't just
have an expanse of a wall, right?
[7:34] » That's the 600 square feet of the
relief. Yeah.
[7:42] » I'm just curious the the right elevation
on the first floor, that one window in
[7:46] the middle.
Is that the is that the kitchen? Why is
[7:51] it placed there? Do we know?
[8:18] should be
>> bathroom.
[8:20] » Yeah, it looks like it's over the
toilet.
[8:22] » Yeah, I could.
>> It's this one. Yeah,
[8:28] » okay.
>> It's above It's above the lab.
[8:32] » Okay. I couldn't tell for sure. Thank
you.
[9:04] Is there any comments?
[9:12] I personally wish the applicant was here
so we could talk through it a little
[9:15] more because it does
I do have questions for the applicant
[9:19] but they're not here so we'll just have
to make a decision without their um
[9:24] commentary
[9:29] » what are your questions
>> I mean why they have located the windows
[9:33] the way they have and haven't maybe
added one in the kitchen it does feel a
[9:37] little bit Um,
I mean the whole goal is to have them
[9:40] aligned and it doesn't feel aligned.
[9:47] » Yeah. I guess other than the hierarchy,
the the one wall, the 476 square feet
[9:53] does meet the
requirements.
[9:57] It just looks kind of weird. Is that
maybe that's what you're getting at is
[10:02] seems like a good place for a window.
>> Well, yeah. And then there could be some
[10:05] more alignment with the hierarchy,
>> right?
[10:07] » Instead of three windows on top and one
>> in that middle space,
[10:12] » left one doesn't align with the ones
above it, but it's different planes at
[10:16] least.
[10:23] I mean, like, fundamentally, I don't
know that I'm opposed
[10:27] because it's on the side elevation,
but that one at least that we're looking
[10:31] at is on the side elevation, so it's
probably not very visible, especially in
[10:36] that area of town that houses are close
together. So, doesn't bother me all that
[10:40] much, but I agree it'd be
nice to ask if we could get one there.
[10:51] » You always have the option to you if you
like.
[10:55] » Just want to throw that.
>> I know. I know.
[10:57] » Yeah.
[11:05] » Any other thoughts?
>> I'm I'm open to continuing. If you've
[11:10] got questions that are unresolved, then
you know,
[11:15] » do we know what the uh status of this
build is? like if they if we continue to
[11:20] a month, is that going to cause a big
problem for the builder?
[11:25] » I don't know. I know he's coming next
month for two other houses.
[11:31] » I guess with that being said, have we
approved this in the past and I just
[11:35] don't remember it
>> that Princeton I think we have. I mean,
[11:39] he's not changing.
Once one is popular, he's using
[11:45] he's building it over and over. Yeah,
[11:53] » made minor modification but that
Princeton I know we've we've approved.
[12:08] » Is this the one where there's usually
like an outdoor
[12:11] » No, this is a different one.
>> All right.
[12:15] Other
[12:24] comments or thoughts?
[12:34] » I don't know that I hate it enough to
continue it. Yeah, I would agree.
[12:47] I don't want to hold them up, but this
is not compliant. I mean, it's not just
[12:51] a little not compliant in my view.
[12:56] » Yeah. I would hate to find out. I wish
we could know if we've approved this in
[13:00] the past. I don't know how hard that
would be able to look that up.
[13:04] I'd hate to continue it and then find
out, oh, we actually approved it a year
[13:08] ago.
[13:12] Yeah, I don't think
I have to go into I mean it's not as
[13:20] fast as
>> Yeah,
[13:24] » because we don't go by the name but I
know
[13:28] I've seen that Princip I can't give you
how many or
[13:32] » or what it actually looked like because
they are a little different.
[13:36] » Three years ago we were not as strict on
That's fair.
[13:43] » I don't know if the if the applicant's
going to be here next month anyway. I
[13:46] don't know what the tremendous
inconveniences to just asking him next
[13:50] time he's here, especially if there's
not any sort of construction delay.
[13:57] Um he's once he gets approval he's
getting the permits right away
[14:08] » compared to other builders they wait a
few months.
[14:12] » What are the what are the rules around
uh calling the applicant?
[14:23] Well, they know that they're scheduled
today. So, I mean, that's that's the way
[14:28] it works. It's either a decision, you
know, if they choose not to appear, a
[14:31] decision is going to be made without
them or they're or it's going to be
[14:34] continued.
[14:39] » Well, without the applicant here, I
mean, I think it's fair to say that we
[14:42] could ask them the next meeting to help
us understand, and that would probably
[14:47] give us some time to also confirm if
we've reviewed this one in the past.
[14:52] Is that how heavy of a lift is that for
you guys that
[14:56] » not harder?
[15:12] » And I mean if it was three years ago
then maybe it's worth looking at it
[15:14] again but if it was six months ago
>> everything is online so I can just pop
[15:19] the first page and
Okay,
[15:31] » it's up to you guys. What do you Does
someone want to make a motion to
[15:33] continue it or a motion to approve?
>> And to be clear, too. Sorry. The the
[15:39] date we if we continue, we'd like to set
up for a date certain and the date of
[15:43] the next meeting is September 28th,
right?
[15:47] I'll make a motion that we continue this
until the September 28th docket.
[15:52] » Second.
>> All those in favor?
[15:54] » I
>> I
[15:56] » opposed. Okay. Motion is continued.
Next item is item D, discussion on the
[16:04] Fairway Municipal Code Chapter 15.
Is Abby, is this your report or is
[16:11] Basel? Both of you are on this.
on the solar. I took the lead on that
[16:17] one and then the basin's Basel had the
lead on that one.
[16:20] » Okay.
>> So, we divided it up.
[16:22] » Do you want to go over anything on the
solar with us?
[16:25] » Uh, yes. Let me pull that up.
[16:36] I don't know what page that is. Yours is
quite thicker than uh fossil.
[16:44] » Yeah. When we started looking at the
solar, it was more than just the R1.
[16:49] Then we realized we hadn't addressed it
in some of the other zones. So that why
[16:53] and then also we kind of had more
discussion in that to work off of. So we
[16:56] already had enough to actually craft
into the ordinance and have you review
[17:00] the red line. So we're a little bit
further on that one just because it was
[17:03] existing already compared to the basins
is starting something new.
[17:11] These watershed analysis are really
long.
[17:19] Here we go.
[17:26] Let's go storm water first.
So on the solar um just a history on
[17:33] that we put it in place and at that time
wanted to go to planning commission till
[17:37] we got a feel on you know how things
would work out which after so many years
[17:41] of review it's been kind of consistent
as far as what's been approved and
[17:45] that's just what we were working off of
for basis. Um, and then also adding the
[17:50] language into the special conditions and
uses of all the other zones, which
[17:54] basically reference it back to R1
because that's where all the same
[17:57] regulation would live in the code. Um,
so we are wanting to remove that from
[18:03] having to come to planning commission
for a final site plan. Um, one thing
[18:08] within
R1 that Basel was wanting to put in
[18:15] um was for that heat detector for
safety. So, within the mechanical room
[18:19] or wherever they have all the batteries
stored, they do have a heat detector on
[18:23] that. Um,
let's see here.
[18:30] This is the long one. R1.
[18:39] Here we go. So, just adding in the
battery storage area with the heat
[18:42] detector. Other than that, all the
regulations are already existing in the
[18:46] code.
[18:52] So, the goal is to not require us to
review solar panel systems unless they
[18:57] require a special condition.
>> Um, they're all under special conditions
[19:01] for uses. That's just where it's
regulated. The ones that would still
[19:05] come to you are like the commercial
projects that require a development
[19:09] plan. That would still require to come
to planning commission. um for this it's
[19:14] really freeing up the uh single family
homes that are pretty consistent on the
[19:19] regulations there. Everybody's meeting
it. Um so that's why we're just wanting
[19:23] to pull that one back. But all your
commercial that has the development plan
[19:26] would still come.
>> Okay.
[19:29] » Any questions for staff on that one?
>> How frequent is this coming up for
[19:34] residential?
>> Um our solar it's picked up. I think we
[19:39] have probably a handful or more each
year
[19:41] » typically. And I was just going to add
up, we get a lot towards the end of the
[19:46] year because of the tax credit. So then
they apply and then we tell them, well,
[19:52] you need to come to planning commission.
Then that delays them. So if they apply
[19:56] like in November,
there's a good chance they'll lose on
[20:00] that tax credit from the federal
government.
[20:04] So that was another reason really we
would like to have that gone.
[20:11] Last year we accepted solar applications
after the planning commission deadline.
[20:15] Really kind of last minute when we were
putting the packet together, we had an
[20:18] applicant come in and that was a big
thing. They had to have it installed by
[20:21] the end of the year for that tax credit.
So kind of looking at that big picture
[20:25] to get it going a little bit faster for
them.
[20:33] » Any other questions on solar?
All right, Basel, do you want to provide
[20:38] your report on the storm water
management?
[20:41] » Okay, so as far as the
storm water again, our version of the
[20:48] code that was adopted in 2014,
u watered
[20:54] was analysis was required
uh for new single family resident or if
[21:00] you're adding or replacing 50% of the
existing principal building. Um
[21:08] the code did not address
analysis required to as far as the
[21:14] detention or infiltration basin what
type of management or enforcement. So we
[21:19] don't have any enforcement and
maintenance
[21:22] for it. So part of our proposal is
require as build inspection
[21:31] certification for the drainage [snorts]
and we require 2year thereafter of
[21:38] furnish certification by an engineer. Um
then we're requiring that that needs to
[21:45] be actually recorded with the county. So
these are the requirement
[21:52] as far as the reporting
we're proposing
[21:57] before an occupancy on the structure
but we know we get the watershed
[22:04] analysis for the planning commission but
we'll give them that extra one year to
[22:13] do all the paperwork or that's I feel
that's fair.
[22:19] » Does this have to be disclosed when a
house is sold then? How does that work?
[22:24] » Yes. So, and and again, once that we're
requiring it to be like disclosed
[22:31] because it's recorded with the county.
>> Okay.
[22:34] » So, the new owner will know that they
have to comply with that maintenance.
[22:41] What's the what's the sanction if the
land if the homeowner doesn't provide
[22:44] the certificate or it's non-compliant?
If it's non-compliant, I see they have
[22:49] to reapply every year. But if they just
>> don't file one, then what's the
[22:53] » I mean, that's where we're going to put
some mechanism where then we'll issue a
[22:59] ticket or citation if they don't comply,
then it'll go to municipal board.
[23:06] » I see that Mission Hills has passed this
recently. Do we know are engineers
[23:12] readily available to do this inspection?
>> I asked them about their experiences
[23:17] with this and they said that people have
been submitting them and that they
[23:21] haven't they haven't been hearing
complaints about it.
[23:29] » Basel, you said this is recorded with
the county. Where is that recorded? Is
[23:33] that the register of deeds or
>> the agreement of the maintenance? Yeah.
[23:37] » Okay. Thanks.
And I did look at Crater Village. They
[23:43] have something actually they're more
restricted. They're doing it at once a
[23:47] year.
So
[23:52] I thought that was an extreme. So
[23:58] » So I guess the is this the actual
changes on the back?
[24:01] » That's what we're proposing. Then
obviously once if if you're in general
[24:06] agreement then we'll up
the ordinance
[24:11] » and we'll do the public hearing and all
of that. Okay.
[24:17] » Any other questions or comments?
[24:23] » If none then we could propose a
>> one other thing. We did some initial
[24:29] numbers as far as how many we have right
now
[24:34] » because with this code it would be
something that um would go back to
[24:37] wershed analysis. We started requiring
that in 2012. So we do need to make it
[24:42] retroactive back to 2012 to catch all
the homes that have already been built.
[24:47] Um because this one basis comes from a
new home that was built a few years ago
[24:52] and a neighbor saying that the basin's
not working correctly. That's why we're
[24:56] needing to put something in place to
address that kind of thing. Um, but we
[25:00] are I look back to 2012 and since then
we've had um 168 homes built. Um, the
[25:06] further you go back in 2012, 13, 14, it
was a little more difficult right now to
[25:10] decipher if a basin was in there. I have
to do some more digging. Um, but I'm
[25:14] estimating it's probably about 50 homes
is that it's going to catch. So, how are
[25:20] we going to go about informing them that
they now have to
[25:23] » We would be sending them most likely a
certified letter.
[25:28] » Is that how Mission Hills did it?
>> I did not I don't recall if they did
[25:34] that going back or if it was more of a
going forward. I I I'll ask about that
[25:37] though. But that that's that would make
sense
[25:41] » doing it that way.
[25:46] » And again, ultimately I mean the city
council's decision, but it's your
[25:52] recommendation.
[25:58] » So, that'd be one thing to think about
as far as how far back to go with it.
[26:04] » Yeah, I think I'd be pretty surprised if
I got a certified letter saying
[26:07] suddenly, oh, you need to inspect this
every two years and pay someone and
[26:11] especially if I didn't build the house
and suddenly inherited this.
[26:15] » Probably not even know it's there.
>> Yeah, it'd be a little bit of a shock, I
[26:17] imagine. How much how much does it cost
to have an engineer do this?
[26:23] » Do not know.
>> Yeah, I mean the numbers depend on who
[26:29] you use.
I'm estimating a couple of grand.
[26:35] » That's something we could probably check
into and see.
[26:40] » Yeah. If you could also understand a
Prairie Village and Mission Hills had
[26:44] done a retroactive one as well.
So the proposal would I'm just catching
[26:52] up with you. I mean this would have
alleged a retroactive effect on people
[26:56] who complied with the law as is when
they built and were permitted as opposed
[27:04] to just prospective on new builds. That
is correct
[27:09] » because there was no regulation in place
at that time or now. So if we approve a
[27:14] new home that has a basin,
we don't have anything that's checking
[27:19] on them to see if they are working
properly.
[27:23] Is there anything analogous or there any
other analogous
[27:29] current requirements to go and go back
and check and confirm that? You see what
[27:35] I mean?
>> We had
[27:39] not for something like that. Are you
talking about in general different
[27:43] scenarios?
>> I think we we have
[27:49] storage
[27:53] like height of boats or whatever. I
think they went back like city council
[28:00] when they approved it.
>> They did have one when we addressed um
[28:06] storage of boats and utility vehicles.
Um, previously the code said if you had
[28:12] it behind your front building line on a
hard surface, you were fine. Um, they
[28:16] removed that. So people that had put
like pads in their backyard to store
[28:20] their camper or boats on, it's no longer
allowed, even if they had it prior. So
[28:25] that's a similar situation of when they
put something in place [clears throat]
[28:28] that covers people that have done it
previously.
[28:35] I I think what you're concerned with is
go back 14 years and all of a sudden we
[28:40] apply a potentially a couple thousand
dollar
[28:44] yearly expense on on them, right?
>> If the time frame if you're I know it's
[28:51] an expense because I know you'd
mentioned previous meeting about the
[28:54] two-year period if it's something a
three or four year to think about as
[28:59] well. maybe not making it as often, but
just some way to figure out it is still
[29:04] working properly as it was designed.
>> Well, for the existing ones, other than
[29:09] this one that we have a concern about,
if there's not an issue, then I don't
[29:13] know if
>> that's fair. But I mean, if it's
[29:17] presented to us, then I feel like then
we could address it. But
[29:21] if it's if it hasn't been proven shown
an issue, then I don't know if we
[29:25] necessarily need to make them start
showing us that it is working. If it's
[29:29] not showing that it's not working,
>> that's something to consider within
[29:33] there to to craft it as well. That's
what
[29:37] » I could see the options.
>> Yeah, I could see that being a challenge
[29:40] just because of people saying, well,
well, I don't know.
[29:44] » It would at that point it would be based
off a code complaint, right? Yeah, I was
[29:47] thinking like a complaint standard. If
somebody complained about their neighbor
[29:51] discharging water upon their property
due to a defective system, then it's
[29:56] worthy of inspection. But the other part
is if you have if you say, well, you
[30:00] don't have to get an inspect unless it's
new, then you might have people that
[30:03] just are grandfathering own system old
systems and not repairing them because
[30:06] what was built in 2012, if I put a new
one in, I'm going to be subject to the
[30:11] annual by annual inspection. So, I'm
just going to keep my old one in and let
[30:14] it just run till failure or whatever.
So,
[30:24] » what is all involved in inspecting it?
>> I wish I know. [laughter]
[30:32] I'm guessing they camera it through the
line and see
[30:38] if there's any
I mean if the gravel is clean or not. I
[30:44] mean I don't know. I don't think they'll
open it up or not. I mean we have few
[30:51] that are
what I call the half moon like a
[30:56] storage. Those are easy to verify, but
the majority of them is infiltration
[31:02] bases here. So, I don't know to be
honest with you how they verify it.
[31:10] » I'll ask about that, too.
>> How serious of an issue is storm water?
[31:16] Is this like a recurring complaint
problem or
[31:21] » Yeah, we do get a lot of complaints and
it's really
[31:27] the whole thing because I was even part
of the discussion but we we took it out
[31:35] even the reports that we're getting it
seems like now if you don't put a basin
[31:40] they're they're taking the water to the
street well now you're creating issue
[31:46] with the street being flooding
um I was going to put something to that
[31:53] effect
that if you have existing going to the
[31:57] street then you you cannot increase by a
percentage but I took it out I I don't
[32:03] know
now that I said it I don't know what
[32:07] your feeling about it is
>> I mean we've talked about that for years
[32:11] we really curious about how much we're
actually putting into the brush
[32:15] » they're not increasing it on the three
sides but then they're increasing it on
[32:19] this tree well to me
[32:25] is on 59th Street. That street's
starting to flood with a minor storm.
[32:32] Now,
[32:36] » I know there's also been issues. I know
Johnson County Waters, they're
[32:40] conducting a study right now about the
effects of increased drainage and on
[32:44] some stream beds and the effects it has
on erosion and how that can affect some
[32:48] of the sewage infrastructure over time.
If that stream bed is not maintained and
[32:54] it continues to erode, it's going to
eventually reach a sewer pipe which
[32:58] could be damaged by the erosion. So
that's something to consider when we're
[33:02] always we're increasing the amount of
discharge from an individual property or
[33:06] development. So
[33:13] currently as it stands, if you have an
issue with water, is it supposed to go
[33:17] through the city or should that really
be handled
[33:21] outside of the city? I feel like in the
past that's been more of a civil.
[33:26] » At this point, that's what we do. We
considered a civil. Um I've been
[33:30] involved with you over the years. We go
out and look and provide them the
[33:33] watershed analysis and our part ends
there.
[33:39] » Yeah.
>> So are we assuming more risk now by
[33:41] adding requirements?
[33:46] » Okay.
>> I think it would still go back on the
[33:49] the engineer and the property owner,
right?
[33:51] » Correct.
[33:55] So, could they just not get it inspected
at that time and show whether it's
[33:58] working or not?
[34:03] » I do not know.
>> Okay.
[34:09] What was that question? I want to make
sure I'm clear.
[34:12] » Well, I mean, the option is one, we
could tell everyone that has one right
[34:16] now that they have to start getting
inspected every two years, or we could
[34:19] continue with the current course, which
is if it happens
[34:23] We we could say I know this is kind of
what I suggested earlier and you said
[34:27] no, but if it's a problem at that point
they have to handle it amongst
[34:30] themselves. So at that point they could
have an engineer inspect it and
[34:34] determine whether it's operating
correctly or not and that would be
[34:36] between the two parties and it would be
outside of this entity.
[34:43] » Sure.
>> I think the reason that um the adjacent
[34:47] city was looking at it was because there
were so many runoff issues that they
[34:52] were looking at it in a comprehensive
fashion. You know, let's let's do green
[34:55] space, you know, minimum green space.
Let's, you know, minimize the building
[34:58] envelope. Just try to reduce the
hardscape and then ensure that the
[35:03] drainage facilities that are installed
are actually working. Um because a lot
[35:07] of times I think the phrase I've heard
is set it and forget it happens. And so
[35:12] they just that's this was just part of
an overall scheme.
[35:15] » Sure.
something that might be worthwhile to
[35:19] know since they've been submitting
reports recently. How many of them have
[35:23] the engineer said it's not working?
>> Like if the answer is always it's
[35:29] [clears throat] working, then
[35:33] » why check it? [laughter]
[35:37] » And how many engineers looked at it?
It's probably just one, right? There's a
[35:42] little bit of engineer judgement.
>> Yeah. Like I wonder Yeah, I wonder if we
[35:47] accomplish anything other than charging
people a bunch of money to do
[35:50] inspections.
[35:55] » I'll have some research questions that
I'll look into
[35:58] back.
[36:01] » All right. Any other questions?
[36:06] » Do you need uh a motion? It sounds like
the solar there wasn't a lot of
[36:11] questions. if we were to recommend that.
Do you need a motion or do you just need
[36:15] our feedback?
>> I think right now we are just doing
[36:18] feedback on everything. Okay. Um that we
kind of made a list the last meeting on
[36:22] different ones to discuss and then just
kind of working through there and
[36:26] crafting things. So at this time not
looking for a motion to send a council
[36:30] or anything like that just to continue
discussion.
[36:32] » Okay. Well, thank you both for digging
into all this and getting us this
[36:36] information.
>> Yeah. So we just need your guys'
[36:39] feedback on this. Yeah.
>> So, is there
[36:45] outside of this meeting, is there some
way you want to receive feedback or
[36:51] » is this it?
>> Can send by email.
[36:54] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[36:54] » Just don't reply all.
>> Send it to me. Just send it to me
[36:58] individually and we can keep looking at
that. But what we'll do is take the
[37:01] feedback we got and all the questions
that you have and work towards the next
[37:04] meeting to continue discussion on that.
Um, since solar is kind of marked off,
[37:09] per se, we'll move on to another one of
the topics that we identified. That way,
[37:14] we'll kind of have two each meeting to
work through instead of compiling it all
[37:18] together. Just break it up a little bit.
>> I'm good with that as long as we have
[37:22] applications. If we have a meeting with
no applications, I would choose just no
[37:25] meeting.
>> Yeah, I don't anticipate that. I know it
[37:28] was odd at the end of last year, we had
some all the time.
[37:30] » Sometime every now and then we get one.
So, if we can have no meeting, then I
[37:33] would
>> We have applications next month.
[37:35] » Okay. So, not next week.
>> Not next week, but maybe in December.
[37:40] » All right, I'm going to move on to
number item four, additional business.
[37:43] The next meeting date will be September
28th, 2026.
[37:47] Um, and then last item of business would
be a motion to adjurnn.
[37:51] » Real quick before we do that, yes,
>> I don't know if it matters now, but just
[37:56] I did manage to find that that Princeton
home we has been approved twice.
[38:02] uh 5919 Granada Street and 5918 Delmare
Street. That was back in 2023.
[38:11] » Do you have a copy of the plans?
>> I do. And it shows the same. So the
[38:15] difference is is that the the current
one we're looking at is called the
[38:20] Princeton Traditional. The ones that
were approved were called the Princeton
[38:24] Modern. So the front facade is
different, but that elevation that has
[38:28] that window hierarchy exception is the
same. Is that a date of a planning
[38:33] commission meeting? Do you want to let
me know? I can see.
[38:36] » August 28th, 2023.
[38:40] » Do we need to make a motion to be open
discussion?
[38:45] » Is that what you're looking to do? Or do
you want to go see it? Maybe.
[38:50] » Yeah, I just thought I'd mention it.
>> Okay, I see.
[38:53] » Because I was able to.
[39:00] They were both on the same meeting, both
of those addresses.
[39:06] » I would just ask Commissioner Deacon who
made the um the motion and
[39:11] » Commissioner Swick, I believe, which one
second.
[39:13] » I think I I think I seconded. Yeah.
>> Okay. Oh, did one of you it was? I would
[39:17] ask that you withdraw the motion if
that's what you wanted to do.
[39:20] » Okay.
>> And then have everybody vote on that and
[39:23] then just make sure everybody agreed and
then you can move on to make another
[39:26] motion to approve it if you wanted.
>> Okay. I I make a motion that I withdraw
[39:30] my previous motion to continue this
matter to the September 28th, 2026
[39:38] docket.
>> Do you agree with that? Commissioning
[39:42] » second.
>> Okay,
[39:44] » we need a vote.
>> All those in favor?
[39:46] » I
>> I
[39:47] » opposed. Thank you.
>> Okay.
[39:48] » Yeah. So, it it's probably not exactly
the same, but it's the same. [laughter]
[39:54] » Yeah. At least lines a little bit with
the upper windows.
[39:58] » Very close.
>> It's kind of weird there's no window in
[40:00] the kitchen.
>> I'm guessing there's a floor plan reason
[40:03] for that, but
>> it's not up to us, I guess, for that
[40:07] one.
>> Is it? I'm assuming is it similar for
[40:10] the left, too?
Left elevation.
[40:14] » Is it the left elevation's also
[40:19] » uh if you go to the left on the plan?
Oh, never mind.
[40:27] It's a little different, but yeah,
>> it's a little different.
[40:29] » Still doesn't like
>> Yeah. Still
[40:44] » Yeah, it's just So,
>> I guess the question is if we're
[40:47] comfortable with the current proposed
layout because it does still require an
[40:52] exception.
[41:00] Yeah, I think my my position is kind of
the same. I don't I don't love it, but I
[41:06] think I'm okay with it. And given that
there are two houses in the same area
[41:11] with basically the same design, I think
I'm okay with it.
[41:18] » Yeah, I agree. They don't look
materially different.
[41:21] Agreed
to.
[41:26] » Was it the same builder in 2023?
>> Yeah, there's We've got precedent for
[41:32] sure.
[41:37] » All right. Would someone like to make a
motion?
[41:44] » I move that we approve the application
for 6114 Fontana Street. Uh seeking
[41:51] exceptions for to the uh window
hierarchy for the right, left and front
[41:55] elevations
uh and subject to staff conditions.
[42:02] » Is there a second?
>> Second.
[42:04] » All in favor?
>> I
[42:06] » opposed. All right. Motion passes.
>> Thank you, Commissioner.
[42:12] » All right.
>> Chat GP.
[42:15] » Last item business is a motion to
adjurnn.
[42:20] Is there a second?
>> Second.
[42:21] » All right. All in favor?
>> I I journ.