[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.

08-31-2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript