[0:33] I will now call the role. It's a short
group tonight. Um, Commissioner Stump
[0:38] » here.
>> Commissioner Sordy
[0:40] » here.
>> Commissioner Bernett
[0:42] » here.
>> Commissioner Mayor
[0:44] » here.
>> I'm here as well. and Vice Chair Barnett
[0:47] and Commissioner Thomas are absent this
evening. Please stand if you can and
[0:51] join as Commissioner Stump leads us in
the pledge.
[0:56] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[1:03] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:09] justice for all.
[1:17] As the planning commission conducts the
meeting this evening, we encourage
[1:20] active participation by the public,
which is essential to democracy and the
[1:25] important work of the planning
commission.
[1:27] Public input is very much welcomed and
always considered. The public can
[1:32] participate in a couple ways. Prior to a
meeting, written comments about agenda
[1:36] items may be submitted to staff. And
during the meeting, there are two
[1:40] opportunities for members of the public
to participate. First, during the verbal
[1:45] communications period, an individual may
speak on a topic that is not on
[1:49] tonight's agenda. Second, during the
public hearing portion of tonight's
[1:53] meeting, any member of the public may
speak about an agenda item. If you wish
[1:58] to address the commission tonight during
verbal communications or on a public
[2:03] hearing item, uh if you are on Zoom,
please raise your hand. But if you are
[2:07] here, could you please fill out one of
these cards and get them to staff? That
[2:10] way, I can call your name out properly.
When you are called to speak, please
[2:15] come up to the podium, speak directly
into the microphone, and you will have
[2:20] three minutes. We now will begin with
the verbal communications portion of the
[2:25] meeting during which members of the
public are invited to address the
[2:28] commission on any issue not on tonight's
agenda.
[2:33] Uh, I would like to add that we take no
action on items discussed during the
[2:37] verbal communications portion. And I
have I have one card, George of the
[2:42] Jungle.
[2:54] Door to the jungle.
[2:58] Birch tree.
Okay. Um
[3:04] the uh two two things that I want to
kind of bring up. Um one is the what's
[3:10] going on with uh Farley and WV VMA. It's
in the town and everybody's talking
[3:16] about the um um the fire, you know, the
the difference between over 1,200 going
[3:24] in under, you know, 600. And it's, you
know, it's really not good news for the
[3:30] town. And I just want you guys to plan
for just in case they're planning on
[3:34] something like a lot of people showing
up and stuff like that. We we need to
[3:38] plan for that stuff. Other thing is I I
I gave you this soccer I mean uh the the
[3:43] field. I don't know you do you guys got
this? It's a the GMAX test and it's you
[3:50] know I I just received this. I'm doing
trying to do a real thorough job of
[3:55] what's going on and I just want to point
this out that 259 is incredibly high and
[4:01] it it's just, you know, I'm I'm going to
still look at it, but it's it's just
[4:06] something that I want to point that out
and uh you know, that's another thing
[4:11] that might come back to haunt us if
certain things are, you know, going
[4:15] sideways on us. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there any questions for
[4:20] the speaker? No, thank you. Um, it looks
like I do have a second one. Linda
[4:27] Swinberg.
[4:37] Hi, I'm Linda Swenberg. Um, I guess this
is somewhat related to the last speaker.
[4:42] Um, I wanted to talk about trust between
the town and the residents. I do trust
[4:51] this town and I trust your process, but
I'll be honest, my trust is wearing
[4:56] quite thin. We've been through five
planning commission hearings on a multih
[5:00] hall assembly item. As public, we get
three minutes and then you deliberate
[5:06] and if we hear something that sounds
kind of odd or that we have experience
[5:10] on, obviously we don't have an
opportunity to interject at that time
[5:16] and that's just how the process works.
But um it's really too bad when I heard
[5:22] the numbers come up um at a previous
meeting. It just didn't jive because I
[5:29] had previous experience as a volunteer
in the community as a house manager for
[5:34] school plays. And when we have when we
run those plays and set up the house,
[5:38] you have to lock the chairs together,
the folding chairs into groups of three.
[5:44] I don't know if any of you have done
that before, but that's in order to
[5:47] ensure that there's an orderly exit
process should an emergency happen. You
[5:52] can't just have people out on the floor.
You wouldn't be allowed to put as many
[5:55] people in the room if you did not lock
those chairs together. Um, so
[6:03] unfortunately,
you got the wrong information. That's
[6:07] what it turns out. And it's not that the
numbers changed. You got numbers from
[6:11] earlier in the process. I do have a
handout if you want. It might help you
[6:16] understand. But the thing is that um
basically you got information from the
[6:24] beginning of a process that was supposed
to happen uh and the beginning of
[6:30] numbers that the building department was
supposed to really have and to be able
[6:34] to verify. I don't know where that
disconnect happened, but it did. Um
[6:41] anyway,
My last concern of my my concern is
[6:45] these probably people have been in an
unsafe overpacked uh situation for quite
[6:51] a while now. Um but my last concern is
forward thinking forward looking
[6:57] assuming this were a theater or any
other assembly project. If seating has
[7:02] changed from fixed or strapped chairs or
anything like that to standing in which
[7:09] is what happened. How will we know that
in the future it will be handled
[7:13] properly? We shouldn't have to wait for
complaints.
[7:17] If an inspector sees a situation that is
not like it was before, they should be
[7:21] asking questions. They should be
entitled to do that. So, what I ask you
[7:26] is um I respectfully ask you that you
direct staff to create a simple
[7:31] checklist for any assembly use change
fixed to floor or to standing or sitting
[7:37] on the floor. um requiring seating plans
and all of that. Um like a simple
[7:42] checklist.
Okay.
[7:45] » Yeah.
>> Would you like
[7:46] » Don't leave questions. Are there
questions for the speaker?
[7:50] » Okay. I do. You you've said different
numbers a couple times, but I would like
[7:54] you to clarify for our notes exactly
which numbers you're referencing.
[7:58] » Well, it's in the planning department's
file for the particular project. I don't
[8:02] have the numbers right here, but there
are actually letters on um record now.
[8:08] Are you referencing allowable occupancy
of the space?
[8:11] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[8:12] » Yeah. So, the different numbers, one of
them is how many fish can you fit in a
[8:17] can and the the final number is how many
can actually get out in time,
[8:23] » right?
>> Okay.
[8:24] » Yes. And feel free if you want to give
the handouts to staff, they will share
[8:28] them with us if you'd like.
>> Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other
[8:32] questions? All right.
Are there any hands raised on Zoom?
[8:42] I'm going to assume no.
[8:48] » There are no hands raised.
>> Okay. Thanks. I wasn't really sure which
[8:52] one of you I should be looking at for
that question right now. So, all right.
[8:56] We will move on to the consent calendar
tonight. We have five items on our
[9:01] consent calendar. Approving the draft
minutes of the May 21st, 2026 planning
[9:06] commission meeting. Special meeting.
Approving the draft minutes of the June
[9:11] 11th planning commission special
meeting. Approve the draft minutes of
[9:15] the June 24th, 2026 planning commission
meeting.
[9:20] Approve the draft minutes of the August
12th, 2026 planning commission meeting.
[9:25] and forward a recommendation to the town
council on an ordinance amending chapter
[9:30] 29, the zoning regulations of the town
code for Senate Bill 9 SB9 regarding
[9:37] urban lot splits and two-unit housing
developments in response to changes in
[9:41] state laws. The proposed amendment to
the town code are not considered a
[9:45] project under section 15378
of the California Environmental Quality
[9:50] Act and in accordance with the
government code section 66411.7N
[9:57] and 66452.21G
21G
[10:01] Senate Bill 9 ordinance are not a
project subject to California
[10:05] Environmental Quality Act. Town Code
amendment application A-26-00004.
[10:13] Are there any speaker cards from the
members of the public that may wish to
[10:18] pull or is there anyone on Zoom with
their hand raised?
[10:21] » You do have a card for verbal.
>> That's it. Okay.
[10:23] » Or sorry for for the minutes.
>> Oh, that's sorry. Yeah, you're right.
[10:29] Okay. So, I do have a a card.
Is this just to speak or to
[10:36] » to speak on the consent calendar?
>> Just to speak. Okay. Um Brown,
[10:50] this is where the Brown Act started. I
think you guys all know the minutes are
[10:54] I think very important to at least
document uh just a little little uh
[11:00] phrases and stuff like that and you know
at one point all all but Rob Stump uh
[11:08] you know redid it. So, I'm I'm just
saying, hey, uh the like the the May
[11:15] 21st one is is, you know, I I basically
uh uh put it in the email and I, you
[11:23] know, transcript it, you know, so it's
it's it's part of what the last speaker
[11:30] is, you know, I I'm just trying to put
out the truth and it should, you know, I
[11:35] I kind of filed the class action. I'd
hope that maybe we get a I'm I'm to
[11:41] suggest that we all sign a document.
Hey, get one uh US district court judge
[11:48] that's a senior that I've talked before.
She actually let me speak. I'm I'm not
[11:52] terrible speaker and I had a lawyer and
but I was having problems with lawyer.
[11:58] So, it's one of those things where, you
know, if somebody that's that knows law
[12:04] because my my this Brown Act was
between, you know, town attorney and me
[12:10] and uh it's it just ballooned. Okay.
Thank you. Any questions? No.
[12:15] » Any questions?
>> Thank you.
[12:20] Um do any commissioners wish to pull any
item from the consent calendar?
[12:25] Commissioner stop. It's not pull, but I
was not present at the uh June 11th
[12:30] special meeting, but I did watch every
moment of it on YouTube.
[12:36] » All right, Commissioner Bernett.
>> Yes, I as well was not uh present for
[12:41] the August 2026
[12:45] planning commission meeting. Um I did
watch it, however, so I feel good about
[12:50] item number five and item one through
three.
[12:55] » All right. Thank you. Any further
discussion or does anyone want to make a
[12:58] motion? Commissioner Stomp.
>> I move to approve the consent calendar.
[13:03] » Second.
>> Second.
[13:04] » Commissioner Sordy. Is there any
discussion? All right. Uh call the
[13:08] question. All in favor? Passes
unanimously.
[13:15] All right. We will now move on to our
public hearings starting with item
[13:18] number six.
[13:23] Okay,
hold on. I want to make sure I just did
[13:27] this right on my notes. I did. Okay.
Consider a request for approval to
[13:31] construct a new second story addition to
an existing single family reference
[13:35] residence on a non-conforming property
zoned R18 located at 1 193 House Drive,
[13:42] APN527-43-021,
[13:47] architecture and site application
S-26-007.
[13:52] categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act
[13:56] section 15301
existing facilities property owner Nira
[14:02] Goyell and applicant is Laura Cuda the
project planner is Siri Nathan before
[14:08] the staff report may I have a show of
hands of those that have seen the
[14:11] property I think we did this previously
so all right and Mr. Nathan, you'll be
[14:15] presenting the staff report this
evening.
[14:17] » I will. Thank you, chair. Um, good
evening, commissioners. Before is an
[14:20] architectural site application for a
project located at 193 House Drive,
[14:25] zoned R18 on June 10th of this year. The
planning commission continued the item
[14:29] to today's hearing with specific
direction for applicant to scale down
[14:33] the overall building mashing and
increase the setback of the second floor
[14:37] great room wall to break up the rear
twotory vertical plane. The applicant
[14:42] states in the letter of justification
that they have met the commission's
[14:45] directions by removing the second floor
open space above the great room and
[14:50] thereby reducing the structures overall
massing by 22% and eliminating the need
[14:55] for the second story wall setback.
Additionally, the applicant revised the
[15:00] plans to feature frosted glass garage
door. While the town consulting I has
[15:04] not evaluated the specific material
change, staff notes that the town's
[15:08] residential design guideline encourages
this encourages the use of wood garage
[15:12] doors. This concludes staff's
presentation and staff will be happy to
[15:16] answer any questions you might have.
>> Thank you, Mr. Nathan. Are there any
[15:19] questions for staff? Commissioner Stump,
[15:25] » can I um
ask about this garage door because it's
[15:31] a little bit unique. Our residential
guidelines call for wood or is it
[15:35] woodlike wood simulated or is it truly
they call for wood garage doors?
[15:40] » Uh the res design guideline just states
that it encourages the use of wood. It
[15:47] also says it encourages the use of
windows in the garage. Um that's it
[15:52] doesn't go any further than that.
>> Do we have experience with this type of
[15:56] garage door in the neighborhood or um
what's been the reaction or the response
[16:02] to these kinds of garage doors in other
locations?
[16:05] » Um there have been doors of similar
material that has been approved in the
[16:10] past. uh usually in the building permit
stage. Uh I'm not sure about this type
[16:15] of garage within the immediate
neighborhood or in the neighborhood.
[16:18] » And through the chair, I can add also
that um we see these types of garage
[16:22] doors come up fairly regularly. Um often
the consulting architect may express
[16:28] some concern with it. Um when we are
outside of a discretionary application,
[16:32] we often work with applicants to ensure
that one of the concerns that the
[16:36] architect typically brings up, which is
uh light bleed through um is that they
[16:41] can put solid panels behind the glass.
So from the exterior, it still looks
[16:45] like you still get that look of that
contemporary garage door, but it
[16:48] eliminates the light bleed. That's one
of the characteristics of these doors
[16:52] that can be challenging. The other is
that um whether the contemporary look of
[16:56] that door is compatible with the
neighborhood
[16:59] » and other than it still doesn't comply
with our residential guidelines, has
[17:03] that been an acceptable fix for light
bleed that we're at least aware of?
[17:08] » Yes, we haven't I to my knowledge we
don't get a whole lot of complaints
[17:11] about these.
>> Thank you.
[17:13] » Right. Any further questions to staff?
All right. And I will call up the
[17:20] applicant to speak. I believe James
Woodard or Oh, no. You okay? Sorry. Just
[17:25] please state your name when you come up
and if you get a chance later, just fill
[17:28] out a card.
>> Oh, there's two. Did I just grab the
[17:31] wrong one? I did. Just go ahead. Sorry.
Go ahead and state your name.
[17:37] » Uh hello everyone. My name is Tika Ger.
Uh and thank you for your time today. So
[17:42] today I'll talk a little bit about our
project. uh why it's important to us and
[17:46] the changes in the design we've made to
meet the recommendations and we're
[17:49] looking forward to get an approval
today. So why this project is important
[17:54] to us. If you go to the next slide uh
one more uh a little bit context
[17:58] actually one less a little bit first
context about our family. We are a
[18:03] family of four me my husband and two
kids. Uh one just started sixth grade uh
[18:07] and the other one is in kindergarten. Uh
going to the next slide.
[18:13] The reason we live here is we love this
neighborhood. We have been living here
[18:16] since 2018. Our kids attend public
school here. They have their closest
[18:20] friends. We have built our strong
relationships with neighbors. It's just
[18:24] simply home for us. This the next one
that's a picture of my daughter with her
[18:30] friends in the neighborhood. And then
the next one slide is the picture of our
[18:34] little one. Uh if you go to the next
slide that's them in the play lot next
[18:40] to our house. And then the next slide
has a picture of me with our community
[18:45] in our backyard. And then the next one
is a picture of needed with his friends
[18:49] and family in our backyard.
Going to the next slide. We believe in
[18:54] peaceful neighborly living and community
service. We both currently serve and
[18:58] have served on several nonprofit boards.
This is going to the next slide. This is
[19:04] the list of those nonprofit boards. And
today I'm not mentioning this to just
[19:08] gain any advantage but just to share our
principles that we believe in giving
[19:12] back to this community. Now going to the
next slide. What has prompted this
[19:16] remodel?
The context has changed a lot since we
[19:20] bought the house in 2018. When we
bought, we were a family of three and
[19:24] now we are four. And then since Nero's
dad passed away last year, his mom comes
[19:29] to stay with us more often. So, we just
simply need more space. Now going to the
[19:35] next slide. We have I want to walk
through the changes in the design we
[19:39] have made to address the
recommendations.
[19:41] We believe we have addressed the massing
and sizing concern raised by staff and
[19:46] planning commission. Going to the next
slide, the recommendation was to scale
[19:50] down the overall massing to better match
the neighborhood context. In the first
[19:55] iteration itself, we reduce the overall
size from 2600 ft² to 2,300 ft² to meet
[20:00] the objective guideline. And today in
our latest uh redesign uh it was uh
[20:06] established in the last hearing that
it's not a problem of twotory or floor
[20:10] area ratio but the massing and as staff
mentioned in this new redesign we have
[20:15] removed the open space on top of great
room reducing the massing by 22%.
[20:20] Going to the new uh next slide you can
see this was the old design and if you
[20:25] go to the next slide you'll see the
reduction in the mass is coming from the
[20:28] illumination of that space.
uh you going to the next slide you'll be
[20:33] able to see also this was the old design
from the front and then if you go to the
[20:37] next slide you'll see the reduction
significant reduction in massing from
[20:40] the front as well
we believe we have also met all the
[20:44] consulting architects recommendations so
uh the first recommendation if you go to
[20:48] the next slide what uh one more please
uh the first recommendation was to
[20:53] extend the first floor eve and roof
across the twotory wall and to set the
[20:57] second floor uh great room wall back so
in the first iteration itself we had
[21:02] extended the eve and now that since we
have eliminated the space above great
[21:05] room so that a setback condition is met
and if you go to the slides you can see
[21:10] the old design and the new design uh
where the eve and uh the set uh space is
[21:14] that wall itself is gone. The second
recommendation if you go uh was to get
[21:20] more uniformity in the windows. Now in
the first iteration itself we had done
[21:24] that actually for all the windows except
for one which was in the stairways and
[21:28] that two we had left just for additional
light light in the stairways. But now in
[21:32] the second iteration we have addressed
that window itself. So if you go to the
[21:36] next slide this was the old design and
going to the next slide you see a new
[21:41] design with much uniformity across all
the windows.
[21:44] Quick uh uh quickly going to the next uh
there were two more recommendations from
[21:48] the consulting architect which were
actually addressed in the first
[21:51] iteration itself. So we can skip over
the next two slides in interest of time
[21:54] and get to the neighborhood context. Uh
going to one more slide actually. So we
[21:59] believe we are being a responsible
neighbor. We have been constantly
[22:03] communicating with all our neighbors on
the design. We have shared design
[22:06] printouts and today we have letter of
supports from seven of our neighbors who
[22:10] support this design and remodel for us.
Some other quick uh points uh to
[22:15] consider the house. Uh if you go a few
more slides uh we can skip over the
[22:21] letters I think. Um and one more slide.
The house behind us with which we share
[22:26] a fence is twotory. So we can go to the
next slide and there are many more such
[22:31] two-story houses just few uh houses down
from us on our street. So, we have
[22:35] attached all of those pictures
and uh quickly with I know two seconds,
[22:41] but if you go to the last slide uh
or I can skip it because I know I'm out
[22:47] of time.
>> Does anyone have a question for this?
[22:54] » I have a question.
>> Well, Commissioner Bernett just raised
[22:57] faster than you, so now you got to wait.
>> Thank you. So would you have any
[23:00] problems actually not putting uh keeping
with the same kind of garage door that
[23:06] is prominent in the neighborhood?
>> Yes. So did you want to address the
[23:10] garage door question
>> to the question for the immediate
[23:14] neighborhood in the neighborhood the
glass door that we've put in the garage
[23:18] it's like quite prominent and I think in
our uh submission we have shared the
[23:24] many houses sh having the same garage
door but if it becomes uh a pertinent
[23:29] question or the blocker we would be open
to considering it but we have already
[23:33] submitted few houses which have similar
in the uh neighborhood. So, you're
[23:38] saying you would not be interested in
keeping it in the same look that it is
[23:43] now?
>> So, to rephrase what he just said, uh we
[23:47] would uh respectfully ask for permission
to keep the glass door design we have
[23:51] offered, but if that's becoming a
condition for approval, we'd be happy to
[23:55] reconsider it.
>> Thank you,
[23:58] Commissioner Sordy.
>> I was just going to ask the applicant to
[24:01] go ahead and explain that last slide.
>> Uh thank you. I really appreciate it. I
[24:08] believe this was also a point brought up
by Commissioner Saudi last time. So, um
[24:12] we our house has a lot of natural
shading. So, uh if Oh, I are you
[24:18] referring to this slide or the slide
after this? Sorry.
[24:24] » I think it was that slide. It's your
last slide. The one you didn't get to
[24:29] present.
>> Oh, yes. The one we didn't get. So, it's
[24:32] one more slide down actually.
Yes. Uh so going one more down.
[24:38] Okay. Yes. So the house has a lot of
natural shade and uh as you can see uh
[24:44] this one we have the story poles up but
you can hardly see them from the play
[24:49] lot and actually there's one more slide
where you can see even from the front
[24:52] view. Uh going to one more slide the and
there also the story poles are up but
[24:58] they're hardly visible from the street.
So the natural shade protects that view.
[25:05] Any further questions for the speaker?
No. All right. Thank you.
[25:11] » Okay. So, I do then have a second card
from James Woodard.
[25:18] » So, James Woodard with Sego Designs. I'm
the principal designer of the project
[25:22] and I have a um comment card there just
for answering any questions that may
[25:25] come.
>> Ah, okay. Thank you very much. Um I
[25:29] don't have any other cards. normally you
get, you know, time to come back and
[25:34] make a closing statement. If you would
like to, please go right ahead.
[25:40] » I do appreciate that time. So, yes. Um,
I just want to really summarize what I
[25:45] already walked through. We love this
neighborhood. We have built our home
[25:49] here and our requirements and context
have changed. We believe we have
[25:55] followed all the recommendations of the
staff, the consulting architect and the
[25:58] planning commission. So, we're
respectfully uh asking for an approval
[26:02] today so we can continue to be a part of
this community.
[26:06] » Okay.
>> Thank you. Are there any final
[26:08] questions? No. And as I always do, I
forgot to ask if there was anybody with
[26:14] their hand raised on Zoom. I'm so sorry.
>> No, there were no raised no hands raised
[26:18] on Zoom.
>> Okay. I will like put it bold and red.
[26:21] Um, all right. We will close the public
portion for this um particular item and
[26:26] I will then ask my fellow commissioners,
do you have any questions of staff or
[26:30] would anyone like to make a motion
before we can begin discussion?
[26:37] » Sorty.
>> Uh, I'll go ahead and make a motion to
[26:40] approve the project. Um, I think the
applicants made some considerable
[26:44] changes. Uh most significantly, I think
they have they um specifically requested
[26:50] what we asked them to, which was to
quote scale down the massing to improve
[26:54] neighborhood compatibility and increase
the setback of the second floor great
[26:57] room wall to break up the two-story
vertical plane. Um I think they've done
[27:01] a significant amount of reduction in
that massing. So I'll just um recommend
[27:08] uh make a motion um to approve the
project subject to the findings that the
[27:12] project is categorically exempt.
uh subject to the finding that the
[27:16] objective standards of chapter 29 of
town code have been met.
[27:20] Um number three that the finding that
the project is in compliance with the
[27:24] residential design guidelines. Number
four um considerations as required under
[27:29] 29.20.150
of the town code relating to
[27:32] architecture and site application. And
finally to approve the architecture and
[27:37] site application S260007
with the conditions contained in exhibit
[27:41] 3 and revised development plans in
exhibit 11.
[27:45] » Thank you. Is there a second?
Commissioner Mayor
[27:48] » I'll second.
>> All right. Thank you. Is there any
[27:51] discussion?
Commissioner Stump.
[27:54] » And I I don't know if this question is
really appropriate. I guess it's to the
[27:57] fellow commissioners. Um, obviously with
our residential design guidelines, it
[28:01] talks about this frosted glass garage
door and that it really is not a fit
[28:06] with our residential design guidelines.
I realize they're just guidelines. Uh,
[28:10] but at the same time, uh, the the owners
actually indicated a willingness to
[28:15] consider something other than the
frosted glass door if that would allow
[28:19] for obviously approval. Um, and so I'm
just trying to get a sense from other
[28:24] commissioners, you know, and how
[clears throat] they kind of feel about
[28:27] the whole garage door issue because I'm
not set on it. It's just something that
[28:31] when you we look at our residential
design guidelines and try and take them
[28:34] seriously.
>> I I will actually speak up on this um
[28:39] because I will say um a few years ago I
remodeled my home. My home has lights in
[28:46] the garage and we worked with staff to
make sure that they are frosted to a
[28:50] point with shades that there is no light
bleed. So I would trust
[28:56] staff to work with them on a solution
because they did with us. That would be
[29:00] my personal opinion. Yes. Does anyone
else have any Commissioner Bernett?
[29:05] » Yes, I tend to agree with Commissioner
Stump. Um, I think going through the
[29:10] neighborhood, I think it was uh
predominantly a a more of a condition a
[29:16] traditional garage door. And I think
that they I congratulate them for making
[29:21] the changes. And I think it'd be a small
request to keep with the uh the keeping
[29:27] of the neighborhood and the keeping of
our residential design guidelines which
[29:31] is uh clearly outlined that uh is we
encourage to use wood garage doors and I
[29:38] think this um would have a much better
uh effect with overall look of the home
[29:46] and the neighborhood. So, I would
support a friendly amendment to uh the
[29:51] maker of the motion, but um that that
would be my suggestion.
[30:00] » To the maker of the motion, is that an
amendment you wish to make?
[30:03] » Well, not quite ready to make it. I
guess I want to understand what design
[30:06] guideline we're
um addressing because maybe I missed it
[30:10] in the staff report.
[30:16] The residency design guideline is 3.4.3.
It states that uh to integrate garage
[30:22] door into the design with appropriate
details, wood doors are encouraged and
[30:27] windows in garage doors are encouraged
and it doesn't really go beyond that in
[30:32] terms of describing.
>> So the second part was specifically wood
[30:36] door.
>> Wood doors.
[30:39] » It calls out the material.
>> Yeah.
[30:41] » Okay.
Um, well, I think the applicant
[30:44] expressed
uh a willingness to do that and since
[30:47] it's a residential design guideline, I
guess I'm happy to make the friendly
[30:50] amendment.
>> Does the seconder agree?
[30:55] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[30:57] » Second. [laughter]
>> All right. Um, quite honestly, for
[31:03] discussion, I I don't agree. Um, I also
think that that is one of our guidelines
[31:07] that needs to be updated. I think that
there are a lot of situations where wood
[31:11] is not appropriate. Um, and more modern
styles are coming out, but it's just one
[31:17] part of the motion. So, I will be
supporting the motion. Is there any
[31:21] further discussion? Sure.
>> Commissioner Mayor?
[31:24] » Yeah. On that uh design guideline, did
you say that uh it's encouraged to use
[31:30] wood garage doors with
uh windows in the in the door itself or
[31:35] in the garage? What's what is it
specifically?
[31:37] » Right. Thank you. Yes, it says u windows
in garage doors are encouraged. It's
[31:43] another bullet point.
>> So, can that be part of the motion uh to
[31:47] the maker of the motion that is wood
door with windows in in the door f?
[31:52] » Yes, I would definitely want a wood door
with windows. Okay. [laughter] So, I
[31:57] kind of think of that as coming standard
these days, but uh let's clarify it for
[32:01] that. Sure.
>> Through the chair. I mean, I think so.
[32:05] The wood is encouraged.
we other rather or other than in
[32:10] historic districts hardly ever see wood.
They're typically metal rollups that
[32:15] have um windows in them. Um but just
just for the commission's information.
[32:20] Um obviously wood's encouraged, so you
can feel free to do that, but just want
[32:25] to make sure that you understand that as
well.
[32:31] » That's a good point.
Um,
[32:35] I mean, as we talk through this, I do
acknowledge the fact that
[32:40] very often nowadays, um, garage doors
have a wood appearance, but they're
[32:44] metal, right? And so, that just kind of
leave it open-ended as to the material.
[32:48] And I do feel now a little bit like I'm
being a little too ownorous by requiring
[32:52] wood. So, um, is it too late to
I'll go back to my original motion. I
[33:00] think that I I I do now that we discuss
it and we kind of work through it, I
[33:03] think it's important to give the
applicant the opportunity to have design
[33:07] freedom and be able to um do what they
want with the garage door. So, I'll
[33:11] stick with my original motion.
>> Is this acceptable to the seconder?
[33:16] » Uh no, I you are not the seconder.
[laughter]
[33:20] » I want to be the second.
>> I know, but you're not. So,
[33:22] » uh yeah, I'm okay with that. as long as
uh there's language uh in the motion to
[33:28] um you know implement a design to
prevent the light bleed from through
[33:33] through the through the glass.
>> Yeah. Yes.
[33:36] » Okay. And then that I think they can
work with staff on that the light bleed,
[33:39] right?
>> Yes.
[33:40] » Okay.
>> Is there any Okay.
[33:43] » Okay. Thank you. Is there any further
discussion?
[33:47] » So my issue is that it's a frosted glass
garage door. Now, it can it doesn't need
[33:53] to be wood, but it needs to be similar
to the other garage doors in the
[33:58] neighborhood and with windows at the
top. My issue is that of a a frosted
[34:03] glass garage door and with our design
guidelines are is not appropriate. And
[34:09] right now, that's what we're following
is our design guidelines. They haven't
[34:13] been updated yet. So that I would
continue to want to uh you know further
[34:20] explain what my issue would be and I
don't know if the maker of the motion
[34:25] and the second maker of the motion uh
would go along with that or not. Um
[34:31] » no I don't agree. Sorry.
Commissioner Sto.
[34:38] » And I I certainly don't see this as a
black and white issue, unfortunately,
[34:42] because even as I saw that our
recommendation is for a wood garage
[34:46] door. My reaction was, "Wow, that's so
yesterday." Uh because wood garage doors
[34:51] are very heavy. Uh you typically never
see them in a rollup door any longer.
[34:56] But there are garage doors that are made
to look woodlike. I'll put it that way.
[35:03] They certainly can't replace Well, some
of them do. Some of them are really
[35:06] really good and have windows etc in
them. And so um I'm just going to go
[35:12] with the technicality kind of nothing
personal but I'm going to stick with you
[35:16] know the idea that it should be woodlike
even though it's not wood you know and
[35:20] they certainly have the right to put
windows in it but I I won't vote for the
[35:24] motion as it is.
>> All right.
[35:27] » But I understand.
>> Okay. Okay. Any further discussion?
[35:32] » All right. I will call the question. All
in favor?
[35:36] Right. Opposed?
Motion passes two to three. Are there
[35:41] any appeal rights on this item?
>> Yes. The decision of the planning
[35:45] commission can be appealed to the town
council by any interested person as
[35:48] defined by town code section 29.10.020
within 10 days on forms available online
[35:54] with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100
p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.
[36:01] » All right. Thank you. We will move on to
item number seven. Consider an appeal of
[36:06] the community development director
decision to approve a request to
[36:10] construct a second story addition
exceeding 100 square feet to an existing
[36:15] single family resident on property zoned
R-120
[36:19] PD located at 695 Bnel Road APN 40703006
[36:29] minor residential application MR-26-001
[36:34] categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act
[36:38] guidelines section 15301
existing facilities. Property owners
[36:44] Ronald C. Eddington Jr. and Marjgery
Eddington. The applicant is James Hec.
[36:50] The appellant is is Dale Drum and the
project planner is Sean Mullen.
[36:56] Can I get a show of hands of who have
[37:03] Okay, sorry. It's getting instructions.
All who have visited the property. There
[37:07] we go. Is there any are there any
disclosures? All right. Seeing none,
[37:15] you like threw me for a curve by handing
me cards in the roll that um Mr. Mullen,
[37:19] will you be giving us a staff report on
this?
[37:21] » Yes, and thank you. Uh before you this
evening is an appeal of the community
[37:24] development director's decision um
approving the second story addition on
[37:28] the Biknel residence. The minor
residential development application was
[37:33] reviewed by the town, including the
town's consulting architect. The
[37:36] applicant responded to all the
consulting architect's recommendations.
[37:40] In the course of the application review,
the neighbor also expressed some privacy
[37:44] and massing concerns to which the
applicant responded by revising the
[37:48] project um including eliminating the
exterior staircase, incorporating a
[37:53] privacy wall on the balcony, and
incorporating trelluses to break up the
[37:56] two-story mass on the side elevation. Uh
the application was deemed complete and
[38:01] given uh the applicant's response to the
recommendations and the neighbor
[38:06] feedback, the director approved the
minor residential development
[38:09] application on June 26th. Um that
decision was appealed to the planning
[38:13] commission by the neighbor on July 1st.
In their documentation, the appellant
[38:18] contends that the proposed second story
addition would adversely affect the
[38:22] privacy of their rear yard and pool area
and result in visual impacts to their
[38:27] property. Uh following the filing of the
appeal, the applicant submitted a
[38:31] written response addressing the issues
which is included um with your staff
[38:35] report and to that an additional letter
from the appellant uh responding to the
[38:40] applicant's letter is also included with
your staff report. Um this was a brief
[38:44] discussion but the complete discussion
of the appeal is also included in your
[38:48] staff report. So based on the reasons
provided in your report, it is
[38:51] recommended that the planning commission
deny the appeal of the community
[38:54] development director's decision
approving uh the minor residential
[38:58] development application. Uh this
concludes staff's presentation and we
[39:01] are available to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mullen. Are there any
[39:04] questions of staff?
Right. None. Commissioner Sordy,
[39:10] » I just had a couple questions about
setbacks. I think this is an R120 zoning
[39:14] district, right? Which is larger lots
and um I didn't see it in the staff
[39:20] report. Um what is the minimum sideyard
setback in R120?
[39:26] » But believe that's 15 ft. I'd have to
double check, but if you give me one
[39:30] second, I'll check for you.
>> Okay. Um
[39:34] does it apply to pools and decks?
>> Um that's a good question. No, it
[39:38] doesn't apply to pools. Pools have their
own um setbacks and pool equipment have
[39:42] their own setbacks. Those can definitely
project into a 15t setback on the rear
[39:47] and and then decks. It really depends on
the height. Um it's I won't it gets a
[39:52] little bit complicated. Um but typically
decks can project a certain distance
[39:57] into required side and rear setbacks
depending on the height. So a deck
[40:01] that's close to the ground can go
anywhere. Um once you get above I think
[40:06] two feet it starts to pull back from the
side setbacks and above the above six
[40:10] feet it's it pulls back more from the
setback
[40:13] » and so the uh there's no setback that
pertains to the pool itself the the
[40:18] water line it's the same in other words
>> yeah there is a setback for pools um I
[40:23] can look that up as well I believe it's
well I won't quote it um but and it's
[40:29] measured from the coping line
>> okay but it's not the pool water line.
[40:34] The pool itself wouldn't be need to be
outside the 15t setback. It could be it
[40:39] could extend into it.
>> It could extend into it. It has um and
[40:42] it's not zone specific. Uh it's just a
static distance from a property line.
[40:48] » Right. Okay. Thank you.
>> Are there any further questions to
[40:53] staff?
>> I'm going to ask a clarifying question
[40:56] because I feel like this goes back and
forth. Appellant then applicant.
[41:01] Correct. Okay. and then closing with a
applicant then appellant.
[41:06] » Thank you. All right. So then I will
call um Dale Drum.
[41:21] » Uh good evening. My address is 697 Bnell
Road. Um I know you've seen all the
[41:28] documentation. Hopefully you've read it
there. Um, my biggest concern is the
[41:33] second story. Um, although it's 15 feet,
maybe a little bit more back with a
[41:40] setback, it's still towering over our
backyard. And I've met with them and I
[41:46] thought the best thing to be um would
have the second story set back a minimum
[41:52] of five feet. I was a real estate
developer. I've built homes in Lascatus,
[41:57] Saratoga,
um Campbell. Um it was very typical even
[42:02] here in Lascatus and it's even your
design guidelines when you're building
[42:07] next to a residential neighbor. The best
thing on a second story uh addition to
[42:13] break up the mass would be to set it
back 5 ft. So that's what I'm
[42:17] requesting. I'm not having any hassles
with how large their building is or
[42:22] anything um that they are building
there. Um but my biggest concern is that
[42:28] when we come out of our backyard is
going to be towering over everything we
[42:32] have. It doesn't just affect me down
from me because the road curves. My
[42:38] other neighbors are affected. And I
believe you got a letter also from my
[42:42] adjacent neighbor at 100 Smith Creek
that also was concerned about looking
[42:48] over and see the big flat stuckle wall.
So what I'd like to see the commission
[42:53] do was follow the guidelines and see if
you can't have the second story set back
[43:00] 5T. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there any questions for
[43:03] the speaker? Commissioner Stump.
So then it's no longer a privacy issue
[43:09] for you. It's more of a sight issue.
>> It's both. Um it's privacy in that it
[43:15] would be towering over the top of us.
When we're in our pool, we're going to
[43:19] be looking up, if you can imagine, 22
feet in the air to their structure. Um
[43:26] there's a photo that I brought you. If
you look at that where you see the red
[43:30] line right now, that's where the setback
is. So that's where the current single
[43:35] story is. That whole entire second story
portion is going to move forward to that
[43:41] red line and go up straight up.
So, it's going to be towering over my
[43:47] property.
[43:52] » Commissioners had a chance to take a
look at what we were given.
[43:58] » Okay. Mr. Stump, you had a follow-up.
>> Yeah. on the privacy aspect as I recall
[44:03] in here that they were proposing to put
up a trellis that would
[44:07] » they have a large deck across the back
and they were proposing to put a trellis
[44:10] on the front of it so that we couldn't
see people walking on the deck. That was
[44:14] nothing I asked for, something that they
decided to do.
[44:18] » Originally, originally they had the deck
all the way to the setback line and the
[44:23] stairs going down in the setback. So
after some discussions, they removed the
[44:28] stairs, they pushed the uh deck back a
little bit, and then now they've added
[44:33] the trellis. There is a trellis on the
structure. We'll never see it because of
[44:37] the neighbor fence that's between us.
It's too low.
[44:40] » So then the trellis from your
perspective provides no benefit to you.
[44:44] Privacy,
>> nothing at all.
[44:49] » Any other questions,
Mr. Sordy? So in that handout that you
[44:53] gave us, I think there's a red line.
>> That red line shows where the current
[44:57] single story comes down. That's at the
setback line. And then if you envision
[45:02] that back section of the twotory is all
going to move forward to that red line.
[45:08] » Well, when you say move forward to the
red line, it's not really in plan view.
[45:13] It's move. Yeah,
>> I'm still confused about what it's
[45:18] showing us. Well, if you envision that
picture, just take that back portion and
[45:23] bring it all the way forward. I'm not an
architect, so I can draw that up.
[45:27] » I guess I see what you're saying now.
Just
[45:29] » But that's where it's going to be.
>> Yeah.
[45:31] » And then it's going to look like the
pages attached.
[45:35] So, there's my version of what it would
look like. I drew up a design uh what I
[45:40] would love to see it look like,
>> and then they have their design. Another
[45:45] question in my notes. I I thought I had
written down that you had asked in pre u
[45:48] prior correspondence with the applicant
that it be moved back three feet and
[45:53] then now you're asking for five foot.
>> Well, that's what you're the if we go by
[45:57] the town's guideline it's five. In my
past everything has been five and then
[46:02] originally I talked to them I said it
could be two to three but the farther
[46:06] back it is the better.
[46:10] » Okay. Thanks.
Any further questions? Um, so I would
[46:16] like to ask you a little bit about the
engagement.
[46:19] Were you notified earlier on? Were you
at any meeting or did somebody come and
[46:25] speak to you about the project or in
reading your letters, I was just trying
[46:28] to come up with that sort of the
timeline?
[46:30] » Yes. When they put the sign up on their
property, that was the first time I knew
[46:34] that they were going to build this
addition. So then I went online and was
[46:39] able to look at the drawings that the
city had online.
[46:42] And following that, were you able to
have
[46:44] » Following that, we got together and
talked to them and that's when we got
[46:48] the first email that I sent to them
after looking at the plans asking them,
[46:52] these are the things that I don't like.
>> Were there any follow-ups after that or?
[46:58] » Yeah, we've talked several times about
what changes we could make and that's
[47:02] how it came into uh the deck being
pushed back and the stairs and a few
[47:06] things, but nothing on the massing of
the structure. So they have have they
[47:10] seen this proposed?
>> I sent that to them as an email. So I
[47:14] attached the email on one of my letters.
It's exactly what I sent him was a quick
[47:19] sketch I did in five minutes and said
this is what I'd like to see it look
[47:23] like.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. That helps.
[47:26] Any further questions? All right. Thank
you.
[47:30] So I will now call the applicant
Marjorie Eddington
[47:35] or Mr. Edington.
Oh,
[47:39] » I'm the Hi, good evening. I'm the
designer of the project. I've been
[47:44] working with the homeowners and with all
of the the decisions to make all of the
[47:48] support changes possible to supply
anything we can do to supply for the
[47:53] neighbors. Worked extensively with Sean.
I'm in my 21st year of doing
[47:58] architectural designs. I've had several
council meetings as well. In my 21 years
[48:03] of doing this in service, I have never
had a client so apt to try to please
[48:09] their neighborhood ever. So, I just
really want you to understand that we
[48:13] have been trying. We've had five
different design changes. We've uh one
[48:18] of the things that they have, as you
mentioned, being a 20 lot um zone, it is
[48:23] a very large lot. The rear yard does
have a tennis court. They do have a
[48:26] swimming pool on the opposite side of
Dale. They do have a trampoline. It is a
[48:31] sloped hill. To be accurate, the
addition is 17 1/2 ft away from the
[48:37] property line. In addition, we did a
light study. We showed that in two
[48:41] different seasons of time and two
different times, the shade from this
[48:45] addition will not encroach on the
neighborhood and the neighbor for Dale.
[48:49] We have then immediately tried to
accommodate by having trees put in. We
[48:54] hired an arborist to rely to look into a
possible tree to give more shade and
[48:59] more support for privacy. In doing so,
we found that there's a tremendous
[49:03] amount of aqueduct and drainage that
goes right down the middle of that side
[49:07] and the fence for the hillside and water
drainage. So, no trees are really
[49:11] applicable. However, we also then moved
windows higher. That bedroom that's
[49:17] going to be moved is a bedroom. It is
not a playroom or an an access room.
[49:21] that would be something that would be
looking down during the day of the play.
[49:25] It is a bedroom. So in in in helping
them, we also raised and minimized the
[49:29] windows so we could have light and
ventilation in the bedroom, but we made
[49:32] them so that they were higher than
height level so view in from that room
[49:36] would not encroach on the neighbor as
well. We then looked into moving the
[49:41] addition further back. What happens is
is due to the construction of making
[49:46] that addition, we need to extensively
spend more money to reassure the house
[49:51] because because there is already a
second addition already. There's already
[49:55] a second story there, but making it all
the way to the perimeter helps cost for
[49:59] the down to the foundation. So, we're
we're looking at trying to tell the
[50:05] neighborhood as well as you that we have
done almost everything possible. We do
[50:10] meet the guidelines. One of the things
that Dale talks about not meeting the
[50:13] guidelines is regarding to the front and
our front elevation meets all the
[50:17] guidelines. We meet all of your
architectural reviews. We meet all of
[50:21] the FRA zonings and limitations and
square footage maximums for this
[50:26] project. We kindly hope that you'll
decide to let this do this project.
[50:31] Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there any questions for
[50:33] the speaker?
[50:37] » Did you have a question? Sorry. Okay.
Okay. Um, I don't think they do. I I do.
[50:42] So, I want to clarify. Um, just so I'm
clear, I'm looking on sheet A4
[50:48] » where it has the second story,
>> the floor plan.
[50:51] » Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um, so if I was
measuring off the edge of the addition
[50:56] off the bedroom to your property line,
you I think you said 17 and 1/2 ft, but
[51:01] I want to make sure I got that right.
>> Yeah, you could look on sheet A1, the
[51:03] site plan. It'll have the actual
dimension.
[51:06] » I just have to make it really big. Yeah.
[51:16] » Okay.
Thank you. That actually answers what I
[51:20] needed. There any further questions?
>> Okay,
[51:25] Commissioner Shorty.
>> 17 foot 7 in.
[51:28] » I had a question. may end up being for
staff. But um so what was the impetus
[51:34] behind engaging Jeremy Khan
um who I think is listed as the town
[51:39] arborist, but then at in the email it
says
[51:43] um fire department planner 5, something
like that. I was just curious to know
[51:47] who engaged that person and was that
part of town review or is it the
[51:50] applicant or
>> So I can answer part of that question.
[51:52] Um the town arborist, the acting town
arborist is a consultant firm um that
[51:58] has a number of arborists and different
professionals on staff. Um Jeremy is I
[52:03] think I got his name right. Um that's
his title, but he's a certified arborist
[52:08] is my understanding. And the applicant
or yeah the applicant may be able to
[52:11] answer why they engaged them, why they
initiated that.
[52:16] » You want do you want to hear
>> this is so wait just to clarify from
[52:19] staff. So that that is an employee of a
consulting firm that serves as a town
[52:24] arborist.
>> Currently they serve as the town
[52:26] arborist. Yes.
>> Okay. Got it.
[52:29] Okay. Thanks.
>> So we called the town arborist because
[52:32] we wanted to because of the privacy
issue and to try to break up a flat
[52:35] wall. We wanted to put the um trees
there and they wanted us to put it
[52:42] closer to our property to the new
addition but we have a drainage system
[52:46] there. So, we contacted Jeremy and he
said, "Oh, well, you can't put it
[52:50] there." And he said, "Because of the
other trees and there's no room." So,
[52:54] then I said, "Well, we could go ahead
and put vines. I'm happy to do whatever
[52:58] we can in that 4ft planter." I suggested
tall trees and they said, "Well, we
[53:02] don't want the trees to be too tall."
So, I don't know how then to break that
[53:07] up. So, then we there was a thing. There
was trelluses. We have a trellis that
[53:11] provides um privacy on the balcony and
then we have trelluses on the first
[53:17] story above the sliding glass door in
the window to break up the flat wall
[53:21] which was in the town guideline. So I
asked if they would be able to see them
[53:26] and he said yes we would be able to see
them because they have a raised living
[53:29] room. Otherwise we would not have put in
the trelluses on the lower story. I
[53:34] would have been happy to put in um some
of those ornamental like Juliet
[53:38] balconies or whatever they might be up
there as well. Um so I'd be happy to put
[53:44] in those, but we did ask Jeremy for
advice because we wanted to do what was
[53:49] appropriate for the town and to try to
help the neighbor and we don't want
[53:54] anything that will fall into his pool.
>> Okay. Do you have any further questions?
[53:59] I do. Um Oh, sorry. Do you have one,
Commissioner Mayor? Yeah, I just sorry a
[54:04] clarifying question uh for the applicant
and the designer. Um can you uh repeat
[54:08] again how far is the second story wall
away from the property line?
[54:13] » 17' 7 in.
>> 17 foot 7 in. Thank you.
[54:16] » So, um I I just want to clarify some of
the conversations then that you've had
[54:21] to sort of understand, you know, there's
a concern about privacy. Sounds like
[54:24] you've guys have been, you know, making
concessions where you have. Sounds like
[54:28] you spoke to an arborist about potential
trees or vines. Have you been able to
[54:33] land on a solution that you you think
will help provide that screening on his
[54:39] side while you are able to maintain your
design?
[54:43] I would have to take one more step with
the arborist because he said there were
[54:47] no trees. He just thought vines could go
in the forefoot. I was so no because he
[54:52] said the flat the drum said the the
trees were not a concern. It was the
[54:56] flat wall. So, I'm not I'm at a I'm
stuck as to I'm happy to do trees that
[55:02] we can plant in a 4 foot raised bed next
to the fence. I'm happy to do that. I
[55:07] don't know if there's trees that will
run into the drainage system. I'm happy
[55:12] to put in vines that can climb as tall
as possible.
[55:17] » Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very
much. Any further questions? All right.
[55:22] Thank you.
[55:26] So at this time, do we have any speakers
on Zoom?
[55:34] » There are no hands raised on Zoom.
>> Okay. I don't have any further cards,
[55:38] which usually means now
the appellent can No. God knew I was
[55:44] going to do that. You get an opportunity
to say anything further if you would
[55:48] like.
I know. I tried. I'm sorry.
[55:57] We have wanted to do this project since
we first bought the house and life
[56:00] happens and now we have the funds and so
asking us to pull it back another 5T
[56:05] would be difficult to do because of the
structural concerns. Um I did just as
[56:10] far as talking with them as soon as the
town said that we needed to talk to them
[56:14] we went out of our way to talk with
them. Um I did not know that in a
[56:18] backyard edition I would have to do
that. So, please forgive my naivity, but
[56:23] I have done everything, my husband and I
have done everything that we can short
[56:27] of
bringing that wall back. We also had
[56:31] another option that we tried, which was,
well, what if we attach, you know, make
[56:36] it look Dale suggested we could keep the
first story roof line coming down and we
[56:42] talked to our architect and our
contractor and they said that would be
[56:46] cost prohibitive as well. So, we tried
both designs to do that. Um, I don't
[56:52] want to look over their yard, which is
why we have their privacy trellis up
[56:57] there. I I don't want to do that at all.
Um,
[57:02] and the neighbor next to them, we can't
see them from our yard, so I'm not quite
[57:07] sure how they can see us, but that's
okay. um the one on 100 Smith Creek who
[57:13] also has a flat wall and a lot of people
have flat walls. So we really would love
[57:20] to go forward with the project. We have
our contractor been waiting for a long
[57:25] time. We have been waiting for a long
time and we feel we have gone out of our
[57:29] way to do almost everything while still
maintaining the integrity of what we
[57:33] would like for our home and our family.
>> Thank you. Any final questions? All
[57:40] right. Thank you. Oh, sorry,
Commissioner Sordy did. Sorry.
[57:44] » Um, so just in reading the
correspondence, I think I I ended up in
[57:48] my notes listing five things I think
that you've done, and I just want to
[57:51] make sure they're still part of the
project. It says, number one, remove the
[57:54] entire set of exterior stairs from the
balcony to the ground.
[57:57] » Yep.
>> Number two, shortened the rear balcony
[58:00] by 4T on both sides of the house to
decreasing the overall length and moving
[58:04] it away from their yard.
>> Yes. Um the third one was put in a
[58:08] privacy lattice on the end side of the
balcony facing their property so we
[58:13] cannot look down on their yard.
>> Yes.
[58:15] » Fourth is we reduced the width of the
rear facing window closest to them um
[58:20] which does not look toward them by 2
feet. So it is now on our side of the
[58:24] privacy lattice. And then finally, um,
the fifth one made the windows on the
[58:28] southside facing them smaller, raising
them to be above head and eye level so
[58:34] that they would not overlook their
property, but still have light and cross
[58:37] breeze. Those are all still. I just want
to make sure those are all
[58:40] » and we put in the those lower lower
trelluses. We don't need the lower
[58:44] trelluses if they're not going to affect
them. Um, but we did put them in to help
[58:49] break up that look.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[58:53] Right. Any further questions? No. Thank
you very much. And now the appellant can
[58:59] come back up.
[59:12] Uh just want to say that one of the
reasons we're pushing for the second
[59:16] story setback is also because you just
heard from them. They cannot ever plant
[59:20] a tree next to this thing. So, it's
going to always be one big flat stuckle
[59:26] wall that I look at in planting
anything. Since we have a pool next to
[59:30] the fence, I really don't want something
someone planting a tree in that little
[59:34] 4ft area because all the roots are going
to end up damaging our pool. So, that's
[59:41] one of the things the easiest way is to
set the building back resolves the
[59:45] massing makes it look better. You see a
little bit of roof line. It's always
[59:50] been done in the past by me and by a lot
of the projects even in this city that
[59:55] we did in the past and I'm not sure why
it doesn't happen here. This is my wife.
[1:00:00] She wants to add a few comments.
>> Hi Monique Drum. I just wanted to I
[1:00:05] don't know if anybody realizes that um
Could you move a little bit closer to
[1:00:09] the microphone so we know they pick you
up? Thank you.
[1:00:10] » Sorry I'm not used to public speaking.
Um that the property in question is
[1:00:16] relatively flat. it does raise up a
little bit. Our property, however, has a
[1:00:21] very large hill that begins um I don't
know what is it like 20 ft 20 ft from
[1:00:27] our um back door. And so we don't have
as much usable property. I mean that's
[1:00:33] why our pools on the side of the house.
We didn't put it there, but we bought it
[1:00:36] that way and that's where the only place
it could really be. So, our gathering
[1:00:40] area is directly outside our back door
and it's about 15 feet to the where the
[1:00:47] hill starts and then, you know, not even
the width of the property. I just want
[1:00:51] to point that out because it's it's
though the properties look really large,
[1:00:55] we don't have um as much accessibility
um to entertain or or use because of the
[1:01:02] giant hill in the backyard.
>> Our property is also 24,000
[1:01:07] » be closer. Yeah, our property is also
24,000 square feet. It's just most of
[1:01:12] our property is not usable. Halfway up
our property, we have a fence so our dog
[1:01:17] can be in there. The rest of it, just
like all of our neighbors, they're all
[1:01:20] halfacre lots. They're all open so the
deer and everything can roam through and
[1:01:25] not be hindered. Um, theirs is one of
the few properties that's flat and
[1:01:29] theirs is fully fenced.
>> Thank you.
[1:01:34] » Are there any questions?
>> No. Thank you very much.
[1:01:42] All right. I will now close the public
portion of the hearing for this item um
[1:01:47] and invite my fellow commissioners to
ask questions of staff or make a motion
[1:01:52] so we can begin discussion.
[1:02:06] Okay, Commissioner,
>> I'll make a motion. Uh, I'll make a
[1:02:10] motion to uh deny the appeal of the
community development director's
[1:02:14] decision to approve a request for
approval uh to construct a second story
[1:02:19] addition exceeding 100 square ft uh to
an existing single family residence on
[1:02:23] property zoned R-120 PD APN 40703006
[1:02:30] categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act
[1:02:35] section 15301
existing facilities ities. Uh, property
[1:02:40] owners Ronald Eddington Jr. and
Marjgerie Eddington, applicant James
[1:02:44] Hec, appellent Dale Drum, project
planner Sean Mullen. I can make the
[1:02:49] findings required finding for SQA. The
project is categorically exempt pursuant
[1:02:54] to the adopted guidelines for the
implementation of the California
[1:02:57] Environmental Quality Act section 15301
existing facilities. Uh, required
[1:03:03] compliance with the zoning regulations.
The project meets the objective
[1:03:07] standards of chapter 29 of the town code
and I can make the finding required
[1:03:11] compliance with the residential design
guidelines. The project is in compliance
[1:03:15] with the residential design guidelines
for single family residences not located
[1:03:19] in hillside areas.
>> Thank you commissioner. Is there a
[1:03:24] second? Commissioner Bernett
second that.
[1:03:27] » All right. Thank you. Is there any
discussion or does anyone want to make
[1:03:31] an alternative motion?
[1:03:36] I'll begin discussion. I'm going to
support the motion. I do think that the
[1:03:41] applicants have done a lot of work to
address issues um that have come up
[1:03:47] particularly around privacy. Sounds like
there's been a number of changes made.
[1:03:51] Um I'm sure that they could work on
something like Ivy to break up a a wall
[1:03:56] or something like that, but um I feel
ultimately it's a nice design. um lines
[1:04:02] up well with interest of the
neighborhood. Any other comments or
[1:04:08] Mr. Sorty?
>> I'll just make a quick comment. I do
[1:04:11] think that the um the applicant has made
considerable effort. Um one of the
[1:04:16] things that's compelling to me is that
there's the difference in grade and I
[1:04:20] think the subject property is above um
and I understand that. But given the
[1:04:24] proximity of the addition and um the
addition of privacy lattice, I do see
[1:04:29] that as potentially screening the view
um it certainly isn't going to remove
[1:04:33] visibility of the whole addition in the
entire bulk and mass. But I think it it
[1:04:37] definitely given the lower grade to
upper grade and the proximity of the
[1:04:42] pool area to the addition. I think it is
going to go part of the way toward
[1:04:46] screening the view. So I think that um
that helps a lot and I'm going to
[1:04:51] support the motion.
>> All right. Thank you. There are no
[1:04:55] further commissioner Mayor.
>> Yeah, I'll just make a couple comments.
[1:04:57] I agree it's a I think it's a tasteful
addition. Uh well executed. Um it's
[1:05:02] beyond the setback by a couple feet. Uh
you did everything right with regard to
[1:05:08] being considerate about privacy with the
clear story windows and the lattice on
[1:05:12] the deck. So um usually when there are
privacy issues, those are the sort of
[1:05:18] strategies that we recommend and you've
already implemented them. So, thank you.
[1:05:23] » Right. There's no further discussion. I
will call the question. All in favor?
[1:05:27] Passes unanimously.
Are there any appeal rights for this
[1:05:31] item?
>> Yes. Thank you. The decision of the
[1:05:34] planning commission can be appealed to
the town council by any interested
[1:05:37] person as defined by section 29.10.020
within 10 days on forms available online
[1:05:44] with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100
p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.
[1:05:50] All right. Thank you. Um, if it's okay
with you guys, can we take a three
[1:05:53] minute break?
All right. We're going to take a very
[1:05:56] quick break. Thank you.
[1:06:22] Step
[1:10:50] All right. Thank you everybody. Call the
uh meeting back to order. So we are now
[1:10:56] going to move on to other business.
Discuss the town council's direction on
[1:11:00] the work plan for the historic
preservation committee and the
[1:11:03] evaluation process used to determine the
significance of pre-1941 residences. The
[1:11:10] planning commission's discussion is not
considered a project under the adopted
[1:11:14] guidelines for the implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
[1:11:19] And Mr. Mullen, will you be giving us
the report on this?
[1:11:25] Yes, thank you. On December 2nd, 2025,
the uh town council provided direction
[1:11:30] to staff to evaluate the level of effort
and feasibility of the following items
[1:11:35] related to historic preservation in the
town. preserving small homes, reviewing
[1:11:40] the boundaries of the historic
districts, refreshing the Bloomfield
[1:11:44] survey, considering replacement
structures, um historically relevant,
[1:11:49] adopting pre41,
uh to 70-year rolling, uh dates, and
[1:11:54] updating and clarifying definitions and
required findings for determining
[1:11:58] historic status. The council asked staff
to return after the objective design
[1:12:04] standards update for multifamily and
mixeduse residential projects was sub
[1:12:08] substantially completed. Um this process
is still going on and going to the
[1:12:13] council on September 1st um for
consideration.
[1:12:17] As such, staff has not begun to evaluate
council's direction regarding historic
[1:12:21] preservation. On February 25th of this
year, the planning commission chair
[1:12:25] requested that an item be added to an
agenda for a discussion of the council's
[1:12:28] direction and evaluation process used to
determine the historic significance of
[1:12:33] pre-41 structures. For the benefit of
the public, I'll remind folks that this
[1:12:36] is a discussion and uh item only and no
action will be taken this evening, nor
[1:12:40] direction provided to staff as we're
waiting for council's direction. But
[1:12:44] your discussion this evening, the
minutes of this uh and the video will be
[1:12:47] ava made available to the council when
staff returns to council um with our
[1:12:52] evaluation of these uh the the work
needs for these items. Um staff's
[1:12:57] available to support your discussion and
we'll try and have some uh visual
[1:13:01] presentations to help guide that.
>> All right. Thank you. Are there any
[1:13:05] questions of staff at this time? All
right.
[1:13:09] And I have two cards. David Zikovich.
Did I say that right? I didn't think I
[1:13:15] would. I'm sorry. I know. You know, by
now you should know to put the phonetic
[1:13:20] for me every time.
>> By now you should know me.
[1:13:23] » It's good. That was a great comeback.
Thank you.
[1:13:26] » Okay. I I'm just here to hear what you
guys have to say tonight and kind of
[1:13:29] curious why you guys don't sit down here
with a whole bunch of architects and
[1:13:32] builders and review the feasibility of
the things that you're trying to come up
[1:13:37] with.
Any questions?
[1:13:43] I don't Anyone have any questions? No.
Okay. Sorry. Commissioner Sto.
[1:13:50] » Well, I think you anticipated one of the
things I was going to be talking about
[1:13:53] tonight, which is including that group
of people. And you know, I we do include
[1:13:59] um people in those conversations. But in
my from my standpoint, it is critically
[1:14:04] important that we include voices like we
got something from um Bess Weisma uh
[1:14:11] back in June. And I thought what was
written was, you know, incredibly
[1:14:15] important and things that we need to
make sure we're taking into account. And
[1:14:19] so I believe that, you know, that is
absolutely got to be a part of the
[1:14:23] process.
>> A majority [clears throat]
[1:14:27] » there wasn't a question in there, but
you can just say hooray. Yay. Well done.
[1:14:31] Uh, the majority of the work,
architecture and construction, is done
[1:14:36] by maybe 10 builders and 10 architects
that work in town all the time. Probably
[1:14:41] check in with Sean on that one. Um, so I
just don't know why you wouldn't get
[1:14:45] their input on on what it is you guys
are trying to achieve.
[1:14:51] » Right. Any further questions of the
speaker? No.
[1:14:54] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:14:56] » And the next card is Vesma.
[1:15:08] Um, good evening, commissioners. I know
I know several of you from many years of
[1:15:12] doing houses um, in town and I
appreciate the opportunity to kind of
[1:15:17] just speak on this subject. Um, again,
as a local residential architect that
[1:15:22] does a lot of projects in historical
districts and immediately adjacent
[1:15:26] historical districts, um, this is a
really passionate topic for me and, uh,
[1:15:32] I know that some of you know how
passionate I am about it. Um, part of it
[1:15:37] is a personal passion. Um, I love what I
do and I love working in this town and
[1:15:42] part of it is my job as an architect to
advocate for my clients. And sometimes
[1:15:48] that means I have to get passionate
about what I present and do. Um, I
[1:15:54] wanted to just reiterate some of the
things that I said in the letter and I'm
[1:15:56] not going to kind of go into it, but I I
do really want uh there to be very
[1:16:02] specific um guidelines for you guys to
tell the town on how to incorporate um
[1:16:09] local architects and builders. I think
we all talk about that we want to be
[1:16:14] included. I think that often we hear,
"Hey, we reached out or you should be
[1:16:18] included or we said we would include
you, but the way in which we're included
[1:16:22] or participate is not always um creating
anything that facilitates positive uh
[1:16:27] conversation nor results. Um it's very
hard for us when we are noticed at a
[1:16:33] last minute. We all run businesses, um,
small businesses, um, and so we'd like a
[1:16:38] little more notice and we'd like a
little more time and we'd like some,
[1:16:40] we'd like some opportunity to maybe talk
about it in several different, uh,
[1:16:44] meeting times, maybe not just one. Um
the recent thing that a lot of us
[1:16:48] participated in related to uh some of
the new housing mandates where there was
[1:16:53] a a company that was hired to facilitate
these uh Zoombased things was um frankly
[1:16:59] very impersonal and a lot of the
questions uh were not really appropriate
[1:17:03] necessarily for single family residents
compared to uh multif family. However,
[1:17:08] there's been a lot of chatter about uh
infiltrating of some design guidelines
[1:17:12] kind of getting cherrypicked and put in
maybe new or future design guidelines. I
[1:17:17] think you even heard tonight um there
are design guidelines that uh
[1:17:23] frankly aren't great or updated design
guidelines, not just uh aesthetically um
[1:17:27] but also neighbor neighborhood specific.
Um and and then most recently uh we now
[1:17:33] have fire uh that is weighing in with
new rules. Half of what you guys talked
[1:17:37] about tonight I couldn't get set I
couldn't get through on a set of plans
[1:17:40] and that's a code that's not a
guideline. So we can talk about things
[1:17:44] that are aesthetic and pretty and nice
to haves but if they don't work with how
[1:17:48] we actually have to build things today
either with materials or distances and
[1:17:52] I'm not just talking fire. I'm talking
about best practices in building then
[1:17:56] the guidelines are impossible and we're
we're we're mincing words. Um, I would
[1:18:01] like to say there are some resources
that I would like you guys to ask me
[1:18:04] about that I think the town could take
advantage of and I'm happy to help with
[1:18:07] any grants to make those resources
available to the town
[1:18:12] because I didn't get to say everything.
[laughter]
[1:18:15] » I Well, I I have a question. I would
like for you to talk about some of those
[1:18:18] resources that you referenced in your
>> Okay. Um I think when we go about uh
[1:18:24] making new guidelines and new standards
especially for historical things some of
[1:18:28] the things that I put in my letter
referencing um both national and state
[1:18:32] standards are uh are certainly guide are
certainly guidelines and yes indeed some
[1:18:37] of that language that we have built into
our own uh historic um code uh or or um
[1:18:44] definitions. What we haven't built into
them and what we haven't done is we have
[1:18:48] not educated our historic committee that
makes decisions on how to interpret
[1:18:53] those and we have a bunch of laymen
doing it. So things become subjective.
[1:18:58] Uh there are training programs out
there, seminars, workshops etc. Um there
[1:19:03] is a uh company called the or an
organization called the California
[1:19:08] Preservation Foundation which
specifically deals with educating towns,
[1:19:13] people, foundations, etc.
um with um opportunities around how to
[1:19:19] uh write guidelines, how to um set up uh
best practices in their town. In fact,
[1:19:25] um, some of their workshops that they
just have going on, uh, are things like
[1:19:29] historic review ordinance and districts,
a three-part public practitioner and
[1:19:33] local government training, historic
districts explained, understanding
[1:19:37] designations, diversity in current
challenging times, preservation boot
[1:19:42] camp, objective design standards in
historic context, balancing housing and
[1:19:47] preservation, policies, case studies,
and strategies. These are just some of
[1:19:51] the simple workshops that are out there
that are that are taught by people who
[1:19:56] are professionals that might help to
create a platform for less subjective
[1:20:01] understanding and interpretation of of
our um of our our guidelines. Um there
[1:20:08] is so that's California Preservation
Foundation. There's also the um
[1:20:12] California State Office of Historic
Preservation or OP
[1:20:18] whose entire program is to offer
assistance in grant-based education
[1:20:23] to integrate historic preservation into
the broader context of overall community
[1:20:27] planning and development activities by
adopting a comprehensive approach to
[1:20:31] preservation planning which combines
identification, evaluation, and
[1:20:35] registration of true historical
resources with strong local planning
[1:20:39] powers, economic incentive ives and
informed policy. These are things that
[1:20:45] are just available in our own state.
Available in our own town is an entire
[1:20:49] collection of architects and builders
who know about all this, who want to
[1:20:53] help these kinds of things. And having
guidelines and interpretations and
[1:21:00] definitions that are consistent
and and actually have integrity in how
[1:21:05] they are made actually makes my job
better. a large part of and makes better
[1:21:10] projects. I mean, I
I think you you can see the difference
[1:21:15] in projects that we saw tonight that
might actually check the box on they've
[1:21:20] met a design guideline.
In my opinion, they're not good design,
[1:21:25] but they've checked a box on it because
we've decided that we've interpreted
[1:21:30] literally a guideline. We haven't
actually made an educated
[1:21:36] um understanding of the intent of it.
>> Okay. I need to see if anyone else has
[1:21:41] any questions. Commissioner Shorty,
>> I was just going to ask if you could
[1:21:44] submit that list of resources to staff
and they could disseminate it to us.
[1:21:48] That would be great. Thank you.
>> And I I mean I would like to say I'm
[1:21:52] happy to help get this integrated into
how we do it. I I mean and I know there
[1:21:58] are several other architects that would
too. I'm really
[1:22:00] » I have to let everybody ask their
questions. Don't go anywhere. There's
[1:22:02] more.
>> Yes, sir.
[1:22:03] » Bernett.
>> So, just to put your mind at ease, I've
[1:22:06] been on the historic preservation
committee for 13 years and I've attended
[1:22:10] many, many uh seminars down in Pasadena
and all over. I've been very involved
[1:22:17] with it. So, just to put your mind at
ease that there are probably some people
[1:22:20] on the historic preservation committee
that aren't just layman. I think the
[1:22:25] biggest issue with our uh what we're
having now the issues we're having is
[1:22:30] with our findings and I think the reason
and we do follow chapter 15 of the
[1:22:36] national
uh you know the preservation it we just
[1:22:41] have gone about it in a different way.
Our issue and I think either Joel or
[1:22:45] Sean can speak to it is that it's not in
code and that is where we get into
[1:22:50] trouble because I think we actually do
follow what you want us to follow but
[1:22:56] Lascatus does it in a different way and
what has hindered us is that it's not in
[1:23:01] a code form and I think that's what
we're probably working on. I've
[1:23:05] discussed it with Sean and Joel. So,
that might put your mind at ease that we
[1:23:10] are um addressing what your concerns
are. And there's just um you know, I
[1:23:18] think that's what this whole thing is
about. And as far as you've mentioned
[1:23:22] many times, the windshield drivebys,
well, that was actually done by
[1:23:28] historians was an initial look and then
just tonight at the historic
[1:23:34] preservation committee, there was a home
on Magnus Loop that had driveby
[1:23:40] initially, but it was given a double
plus rating by Bloomfield herself. And
[1:23:46] then you followed through then with a
much more indepth
[1:23:50] uh survey of the home, ratings of the
home, and and how it eventually ended up
[1:23:56] that it would appear it was for the
National Register. So, we just didn't do
[1:24:01] drivebys, though that was in general.
And then we went into more depth if it
[1:24:06] looked like that home did have qualities
that should be looked into more deeply.
[1:24:12] So my question is I hope that that might
give you some uh
[1:24:20] uh
strength or some uh feeling that you
[1:24:25] that the historic preservation committee
has some history and knowledge of what I
[1:24:31] think I find offense when you always say
layman but I don't think you do your
[1:24:36] your due diligence into looking into who
really is on the historic preservation
[1:24:40] committee and the years of experience
they've had and assuming that. Um, so I
[1:24:46] just needed to put that out there. All
right. Are there any other questions? I
[1:24:52] I actually do have one. Um, I know other
communities, particularly the smaller
[1:24:57] ones, also deal with some of this. Have
you been involved in any other
[1:25:02] communities and maybe how they did maybe
workshop this with architects or
[1:25:06] something? Is there a
brief description that you could give me
[1:25:11] of what perhaps you have seen because
council is going to hear all of this and
[1:25:17] it might be nice to hear hey this has
been successful in another community.
[1:25:22] Um I think what is successful in other
communities um Campbell, Carmemell, uh
[1:25:28] even San Jose and Santa Clara County and
their historical or their heritage uh
[1:25:33] commission is what the county calls
theirs, not historical.
[1:25:37] um is
there are people who are um and I I
[1:25:43] Commissioner Bernett, I use the term
layman because I mean people who do not
[1:25:46] have a degree or certification as I do
or as the people who wrote the Pasadena
[1:25:53] first 30 pages of their 280 page
guideline document. doesn't relate to my
[1:25:58] question
>> but okay but I think what it is is you
[1:26:03] you have to have a round table with
people who understand how the guidelines
[1:26:08] and regulations are written and can help
people make the best interpretation of
[1:26:15] those for the specific project
>> and in those communities did that
[1:26:19] opportunity get to happen that's kind of
what I'm trying to understand right like
[1:26:23] seems like we're moving down a process
>> so there's often a historian that is on
[1:26:26] the
um or on the committee.
[1:26:29] » Uh I would say that that's just like the
way we have Canon uh do um design
[1:26:35] guideline uh looks. There are um but
there's someone who's actually on the
[1:26:39] committee. It's not just another sendout
because typically we all will get our
[1:26:42] own historian if it's a project of
significance or something like that.
[1:26:45] Anyway, um I would say that uh there's
also there's also a conversation about
[1:26:52] if it is not meeting different um it the
same way the national register looks at
[1:26:58] it. If if things are not slotted in
different uh categories, if they're not
[1:27:02] meeting all of these different pieces,
it's no longer open for discussion.
[1:27:06] these other parts and we as a community
have everything wide open for discussion
[1:27:12] whether it checks a box has has two
pluses or narrows it down.
[1:27:16] » Correct. So you start getting on to
tracks that then if you want to contest
[1:27:20] the track um for instance Santa Clara
County
[1:27:29] » you have to talk into the microphone.
>> Sorry if you want to contest the track.
[1:27:33] they have a twopart
application that is separate that gets
[1:27:38] looked at then by um by historians. One
is identification of properties for
[1:27:44] potential historical significance. So if
it's an inquest or questionable thing,
[1:27:48] it goes through a different process.
After it passes that, it goes through a
[1:27:53] deeper part two application that's also
looked at not just by planners but by
[1:27:58] someone like Canon etc. and requires a
significant body of work to be presented
[1:28:03] for that. And that's that's okay.
>> Yeah. So,
[1:28:07] » that's helpful. That's very very
helpful. Thank you,
[1:28:09] » Commissioner. Mayor,
>> sorry I missed that. Did you What
[1:28:11] jurisdiction was that? Santa CL County.
>> That's Santa CL County.
[1:28:14] » Santa Clair County. Okay. I think San
Francisco, the city of San Francisco has
[1:28:17] something similar to that process. Yeah,
>> I think that would be nice to
[1:28:20] understand. Commissioner, mayor, if we
talk about that later.
[1:28:23] » Okay.
>> I think if you want to look at a a
[1:28:25] keynote one in California, it would be
Pasadena.
[1:28:27] » Okay. Thank you. Um, hold on.
Commissioner Bernett, then Commissioner
[1:28:31] stop.
>> I just want to I want to ask one
[1:28:33] question. Were you here when uh
Bloomfield did the survey? Were you
[1:28:37] familiar with all her like the survey
methodology and all the all the issues
[1:28:43] that were gone through at that time and
how Lascat has arrived at
[1:28:50] what we have now. Are you aware? Have
you ever looked at her? I mean, if you
[1:28:55] go to our historic section in the
library and even in our planning
[1:28:59] department, there's a whole history of
everything that she presented and
[1:29:04] followed through on. And that's Have you
looked at that? I mean, can you're
[1:29:08] talking about your side now. Why I think
you should also, and again, my question
[1:29:14] is, have you done that? Have you looked
at the Bloomfield study and what that
[1:29:18] really means and how we really do our
survey and what it was based on our
[1:29:23] criteria, the four major criteria and
the breakdown of that and how we arrive
[1:29:28] at our findings. Have you done that?
>> Yes.
[1:29:31] » Oh, good. Thank you,
Commissioner Stump.
[1:29:37] » This is just a followup. You know, you
were talking about communities that you
[1:29:40] were saying Carmemell, Campbell, maybe
Santa Clara County, Pasadena. Um, as you
[1:29:47] think about our town, the character of
our town, who would you say you'd really
[1:29:52] chase after from best practices to go
take a look at what they are doing and
[1:29:56] learn from what they're doing?
[1:30:01] » Um, I'd probably put us uh in a in
actually an outofstate town. Um, and I I
[1:30:10] think if we were to look out of state at
how historicals handled, I would I would
[1:30:14] probably pick something like um Park
City, Utah. Uh, and I say that because
[1:30:20] they have a small core downtown. They
have an expanded uh urban element that
[1:30:27] is not designated truly historical, but
clearly um is integrated into the fabric
[1:30:32] of what we all know. Then they have
random
[1:30:36] uh more p more planned developments like
the way we have the manor etc. And so
[1:30:43] the way that their designations are
written and done um they really are
[1:30:47] reflective by neighborhood and typology.
We don't have as big a core as Pasadena
[1:30:53] does. We don't have famous architects
yet like Pasadena does did. We don't you
[1:30:59] know there's we don't have that that
type of core. we have a little bit more
[1:31:03] of a hodge podge around a very tight
core in in my opinion.
[1:31:07] » Thank you for that. And chair, I will
volunteer to sacrifice to go to Park
[1:31:11] City on behalf of the planning
commission.
[1:31:12] » No, no, I'm the chair. I already took
that spot, so sorry. All right. Do we
[1:31:16] have any further questions? No. Thank
you very much. Um, and Lee, I did get
[1:31:22] another card.
[1:31:31] » Again, speaking as a 31-year resident of
Losatis, I am very encouraged by the
[1:31:36] conversation that I hear, the the
dialogue back and forth in a sense of
[1:31:40] trying to find ways to learn from each
other and work together. Um, clearly
[1:31:44] it's needed. Um my wife and I moved here
with our family because of the sense of
[1:31:50] character in this town. Um, we've lived
in seven other, my wife and I lived in
[1:31:55] seven other cities in four countries.
And when we came here to to to look, we
[1:32:03] fell in love. And we want to preserve
the character, preserve the character
[1:32:08] that's here so that the next generation
can also see this uh this sense of
[1:32:15] welcoming community but still preserving
the the values and and that sense of of
[1:32:21] history. Um, and
the uh the priority I think that this
[1:32:30] community needs to be doing is to work
to preserve that sense of history and
[1:32:37] and relevance while still welcoming new
residents in into our town. Um, and I
[1:32:45] also think it's interesting to think of,
you know, not just pre-1941 housing to
[1:32:49] be preserved. Maybe now we ought to look
at pre-1961
[1:32:54] because there's a lot of that type of
character that that defines certain
[1:32:58] neighborhoods. Uh where I live, the 25
houses on the street that I live on, um
[1:33:04] they they they are being preserved. U we
had one neighbor who wanted to build a
[1:33:09] second story and the neighbors came
together and said absolutely not. So,
[1:33:12] they moved a couple of blocks away and
uh they're in the uh the unincorporated
[1:33:18] area called Blossom Hill. And uh that's
fine. Um, and the other thing that I'm
[1:33:25] concerned with, um, well, before I get
to that, I I think the suggestion that
[1:33:30] was made by the the previous, uh, uh,
guest up here, um, she made some very
[1:33:36] good points about looking at other areas
that have found very good ways of
[1:33:42] putting that sense of preservation into
the municipal code. And that's what I
[1:33:48] think is missing here is uh we need to
put some of this into the code. So I I
[1:33:54] think that should be the mission that is
undertaken uh as quickly as possible.
[1:33:59] And I like the workshop that's going to
be done uh the next couple of weeks to
[1:34:04] to deal with a lot of this. And um the
last thing is we need to find ways to
[1:34:09] protect ourselves from the threats
coming from Ringling Brothers up in
[1:34:13] Sacramento with a legislation that
they're passing down about their new
[1:34:17] mandates, ignoring local sense of
community, but rather they want to
[1:34:21] standardize everything, make it less
expensive, allegedly less expensive, so
[1:34:26] that developers can put in all kinds of
things that have no bearing on the
[1:34:31] quality of life here. Uh,
and I'll end with that. It's
[1:34:36] » a good spot to end. Hold on.
Commissioner Bernett.
[1:34:39] » Yes. So, thank you for speaking tonight.
Do you think we've done a pretty good
[1:34:43] job at preserving and maintaining the
character of our town?
[1:34:47] » I believe so. I uh I I'm encouraged to
see the commitment from a lot of people
[1:34:54] who are not just in the audience, but up
at the DAS and and that is is good.
[1:35:02] The thing is now keep it up and and find
ways to be even more engaging with the
[1:35:08] rest of the community and other
legislators because that's where the
[1:35:12] changes have to occur.
>> Thank you. It sounds like we are doing
[1:35:15] something right.
>> Passing grade.
[1:35:19] » All right. Are there any other questions
for the speaker?
[1:35:22] » Right. No. Thank you.
So, Mr. Mullen, like we talked a little
[1:35:27] bit before we started this, there were
some objectives from council for this
[1:35:33] discussion. Could you pull that up?
>> Let me get those on the screen for you.
[1:35:38] » So to my fellow commissioners, in
anticipation of this, I thought to keep
[1:35:41] this organized, we will simply go
through those.
[1:35:45] » Yeah. Can I finish? What does it say?
>> Just wanted to ask kind of a process
[1:35:49] question. and one of my fellow
commissioners handed out something to us
[1:35:53] at the deis that's an eight-page um it's
entitled survey methodology and um I
[1:35:59] think she was a little concerned that I
didn't want to accept it in advance of
[1:36:02] the meeting. She did tell me that it was
it was disseminated to director Pollson
[1:36:06] and that it would be handed out to
everybody equally. I just wanted to make
[1:36:09] sure everybody got it.
>> Yeah, it's not this evening. We're just
[1:36:13] having a discussion. There's no action.
We still have to get direction from
[1:36:16] council on these items as to what we're
actually going to work on. Um, but you
[1:36:21] know, that's something that we can
definitely make sure that the other two
[1:36:23] commissioners that aren't here.
>> Yeah, just to clarify my question, I
[1:36:27] it's actually a historical document.
It's entitled survey methodology. I
[1:36:30] think it was done by somebody, some
Bloomfield and um back in the '9s and
[1:36:36] it's eight pages long. I just didn't
have a chance to read it and it's really
[1:36:39] more of a procedural question. Should a
planning commissioner be handing out
[1:36:42] information right before the hearing
that the public doesn't have access to?
[1:36:45] It should come to staff and then staff
will disseminate it to the um officials
[1:36:50] and to the public. And so if you give it
to me, I can run some copies because we
[1:36:55] should have it available for the public
as well.
[1:36:58] » Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
>> No, that's fine because I I actually
[1:37:01] don't I don't have a copy of it either.
So that'd be fine.
[1:37:05] » But that's okay.
>> Can I just
[1:37:08] » Commissioner Bernett?
>> Yes. Actually, it was I I gave it to uh
[1:37:12] Commissioner Sordy because there were
questions in the past on the the drive
[1:37:18] by uh windshield thing and I thought
this would be a nice little summary for
[1:37:23] him. I wasn't like meant to
it was more like a reading something. It
[1:37:30] it wasn't coming up tonight, but it was
just
[1:37:32] » So, was it only for Commissioner Sordy?
>> I gave it to Commissioner. Okay, then I
[1:37:37] I'll make copies because it should go to
the public as well.
[1:37:40] » Okay. Thank you.
>> All right.
[1:37:45] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mullins. So, there
were a few key things that you can
[1:37:50] obviously fill in since I wasn't at that
meeting that came up that were more
[1:37:54] specific and how that they would like to
maybe guide this conversation. So, I
[1:37:58] would like as much as possible to stick
to these bullet points. Obviously,
[1:38:01] there's some other um supplemental
information that was in our packet that
[1:38:05] has a little bit more of a deep dive on
some things if we need to reference
[1:38:09] that. Um so I but I would try to like to
try to stick to this just for the sake
[1:38:14] of people that are going to listen to
this video later and take in that
[1:38:18] information. So the first one is
preserving smaller homes.
[1:38:23] Are there any thoughts that you guys
would like to share around preserving
[1:38:27] obviously historic homes I think is what
we're trying to say or in a historic
[1:38:30] neighborhood specifically Commissioner
Stump.
[1:38:33] » Yeah, I I attended a um [clears throat]
housing boot camp in San Jose this past
[1:38:39] weekend and um I don't know that it's
new. In fact, either Mr. Mullen or Mr.
[1:38:44] Pollson can correct me, but there's more
discussion going about trying to
[1:38:48] preserve affordable housing. Um, which
means ideally finding funding that, for
[1:38:55] example, if a a place is going to sell,
and it's going to get turned into market
[1:38:58] rate housing that a group steps up, buys
it, it gets refurbished, and the same
[1:39:04] people live there. This idea of having
smaller homes in Loscatos, again, what's
[1:39:10] affordable? Even a smaller historic home
in Los Gatos is going to be beyond the
[1:39:15] reach of a family of four, $150,000 a
year. But I do think it's a good thought
[1:39:22] because I don't know that a historic
home because there may be more value to
[1:39:27] that home is considered a starter home.
But if you've got a 1,200 foot home
[1:39:34] versus a 4,000 ft home, it might give
people an opportunity. Like I said,
[1:39:42] historic homes is not my area of
expertise and what the overall value is.
[1:39:46] We just know that uh property values in
Los are really really difficult and how
[1:39:52] do we give young families when we came
back to this area we ended up in a
[1:39:56] 12,200 ft² home with a family of four
that's what we could afford at that
[1:40:00] point in time um and and yet we could
afford it 1,200 foot home so I do think
[1:40:07] there is something to this idea of
trying to preserve smaller homes um
[1:40:12] potentially for the benefit of allowing
somebody an entry point into the
[1:40:17] community potentially uninformed
opinion.
[1:40:21] » Yeah, the potentially lies with the
historic part. Are there any other
[1:40:25] comments anybody wants to make?
Commissioner Mayor?
[1:40:28] » Yeah, I think Commissioner Stump uh
touches on something interesting about
[1:40:33] um you know, smaller homes traditionally
being starter homes, more affordable
[1:40:38] homes. Um, that's sort of a housing
affordability
[1:40:43] conversation,
preserving smaller homes. I, so when I
[1:40:47] see that bullet point,
uh, we're talking about affordability,
[1:40:51] but
this is about historic preservation. So,
[1:40:56] I don't necessarily think that just
because something is small, it's it's
[1:41:00] historic. There's probably historic
homes that are very large as well. So,
[1:41:05] I'm just trying to understand what that
bullet point
[1:41:09] means exactly and maybe maybe Sean Mr.
And you can uh is is it about housing
[1:41:15] affordability an entry point? Uh is that
what it's is that the primary objective?
[1:41:20] » I think partially I think it has a foot
in both worlds. I think it has a far uh
[1:41:23] the foot in the affordability world in
that um a smaller home is and I'll use
[1:41:28] the term naturally affordable with
commissioner Stump's point taken that
[1:41:32] affordability even a small home in
Lascatus is out of reach for most folks.
[1:41:36] Um so I think that's the affordability
component. The other component is that
[1:41:42] older homes tend to be smaller and from
a historic preservation perspective,
[1:41:50] there's some value in preserving that
context in the town.
[1:41:54] » And I'll just add, I mean, I think that
most of these come from a list that was
[1:41:58] prepared and I think reviewed by HPC.
And so they see these smaller homes come
[1:42:03] and being requested to be removed from
the inventory. Um, I think the
[1:42:07] affordability component, I'm not sure
how much weight there is in that. Um,
[1:42:12] because people, whether it's a historic
home or a non-historic home, you're
[1:42:17] paying for what you potentially could
build there. Um, so unless someone's
[1:42:21] going to uh talk to all the real
litterers and say you got to sell these
[1:42:26] homes for cheaper than, you know, you
normally would, which I don't think is
[1:42:29] reality. Um, I think it's a it's kind
of, as Mr. Mullen said it's in both
[1:42:34] sides, but the affordability component,
you know, that that's really market
[1:42:38] driven. So, I'm not sure how we're going
to effectively affect that component of
[1:42:43] it.
>> Yeah. Because [clears throat] correct me
[1:42:45] if I'm wrong, but, you know, I've seen
homes in Loscatoos in historic districts
[1:42:50] that, you know, go through HPC and go
through the the commission and go
[1:42:55] through the whole process and they add a
lot of square footage, but they still
[1:42:59] are considered historic homes. So the
smaller homes point and and I mean I
[1:43:05] understand the point of wanting to
preserve opportunity for affordable
[1:43:09] housing, but in the conversation of
historic preservation, I just don't want
[1:43:15] uh that conversation to sort of uh
sideline and or make us lose focus on on
[1:43:21] the historic preservation part.
>> Understood. It's because my take on that
[1:43:26] having sat on the historic preservation
for a long time and then the commission
[1:43:30] for a long time is um we have seen a
number of historic homes whether it's
[1:43:35] the historic neighborhood or designated
um where someone has bought it their
[1:43:41] family has grown or whatever and they
they want to expand that house and I
[1:43:46] think we have been fortunate and seen a
number of really sensitive ones that are
[1:43:50] done that maintain the character of it
you know but allow you know a larger
[1:43:55] their family to live there. And I think
we've seen examples where it wasn't done
[1:43:59] quite so well. Um, and to me, I think
that might be a little bit more of this,
[1:44:04] you know, what language is in
guidelines or whatever right now around,
[1:44:11] you know, where do we draw the line on
no, you have to preserve the smaller
[1:44:16] house versus it is very acceptable to
add on to this house, but with these
[1:44:20] very specific criteria. And that's what
I would assume because I've had a lot of
[1:44:23] meetings where we have argued about is
it acceptable and what's that criteria?
[1:44:28] I don't know that I think we're supposed
to solve that tonight, but to me that's
[1:44:31] the issue. If somebody else sees
something more to that idea of either
[1:44:35] preserving or expanding homes, I would
like to know.
[1:44:40] » Yeah. And by the way, I don't disagree
with the discussion about affordable. In
[1:44:44] fact, I was not trying. Unfortunately,
affordable is a loaded word. Um, and I
[1:44:49] really wasn't using it in the sense that
these homes are certified affordable,
[1:44:53] right? So that they're going to have,
you know, 55 years of restriction and
[1:44:58] sale. Um, but just the fact, like I say,
for us when we moved back to Los Gatos,
[1:45:04] you know, 1,200 ft house was was there
and it afforded us an entry point. So
[1:45:11] there is value in in smaller square
footage homes whether they're historic
[1:45:15] or not in Los.
[1:45:19] » Mr. Mullen, do you by any chance have in
front of you there there is some
[1:45:22] language about the amount of the home
that must be preserved when you're
[1:45:26] adding on to a historic home to maintain
that designation. So I well there's a
[1:45:32] technical demolition
um definition that we look at um that
[1:45:38] has to do with the exterior wall
covering of the outside walls of of
[1:45:42] historic houses. Um street facing
facades you're only allowed up to 25% of
[1:45:48] demolition. Um so you could only remove
the siding um if it's original um of 25%
[1:45:54] of the street facing facads and then 50%
of the building cumulative. Um, and we
[1:45:59] don't look at the roof.
Projects that
[1:46:04] it gets a little murky admittedly, but
projects in districts um can experience
[1:46:09] a technical demolition and there's not
any language that says you didn't tear
[1:46:15] the whole house down and the HPC and the
town approved it and you did an addition
[1:46:20] to it. It's still historic, but it's
still treated as such. Um but with
[1:46:26] recognition that it experienced a
technical demolition. U there's holes in
[1:46:29] our code for sure and right things that
can be improved.
[1:46:32] » Okay. I because I do think that's
probably one spot. Um I I have actually
[1:46:38] always felt like the language around
what the addition
[1:46:42] to a pre um a historic home how that
addition should be. Actually I always
[1:46:48] thought that wasn't too bad. I'm not an
architect. So perhaps that's also
[1:46:52] something that people want to advise
council perhaps to get guidance on um
[1:46:57] from professionals on how that language
could be tightened to avoid
[1:47:02] maybe more people misconstring what the
meaning is behind that.
[1:47:07] There any other conversation around
preserving smaller homes?
[1:47:11] All right. Reviewing the boundaries of
the historic districts.
[1:47:16] Um any thoughts on this?
[1:47:22] Okay, good. Commissioner, mayor,
>> uh,
[1:47:24] » I think our current historic districts
work pretty well. Most of the issues I
[1:47:28] see with the, uh, historic review seem
to be these 19 pre-1941
[1:47:34] properties that are not in one of the
well-defined historic districts. So,
[1:47:41] I wouldn't advise council to make any
changes to the current boundaries, but
[1:47:45] if they wanted to consider
adding another neighborhood or two, I
[1:47:51] mean, I'd be curious to hear if any
other commissioners have thoughts on if
[1:47:55] there are areas currently not that are
designated historic districts that
[1:48:00] should be.
Okay, that's an interesting thought
[1:48:04] because I do think our current historic
districts are pretty good, but I think
[1:48:08] some of this is going to also land on do
we change the years to where a whole
[1:48:13] district then falls under like a 70-year
ruling.
[1:48:16] » I'll make a comment when we get to that.
>> Okay. So, to me, those tie a little bit,
[1:48:19] but I could be looking at that wrong.
Any other thoughts, Commissioner Shorty?
[1:48:24] I was just going to mention um one of my
colleagues mentioned Magnazon Loop
[1:48:27] earlier and which has a I don't know the
age of all those homes but I don't think
[1:48:32] that's a historic district and I mean I
think it's just noteworthy.
[1:48:38] So
>> I can add through the chair that
[1:48:40] Magnuson Loop um I can't remember the
age of the homes they're all most of
[1:48:44] them are provincial and architectural
style. Um they were rated most of them
[1:48:48] rated pretty high especially as you get
closer to Loscatus Boulevard in the
[1:48:52] Bloomfield survey and there was
recognition that that could as it was
[1:48:56] kind of identified as a potential
district there through that survey
[1:48:59] process and I'm sure Commissioner
Bernett will add to this um through that
[1:49:03] survey process that was conducted in the
late 80s and 90s um there were a number
[1:49:08] of areas of town LMA Alta Glenidge
Johnson and the Cottage District that
[1:49:14] were identified as potential districts.
they just were not adopted um for one
[1:49:18] reason or another. I wasn't there um
quite old enough yet, but I'll leave it
[1:49:23] at that.
>> Commissioner Fernette.
[1:49:26] » Yeah, I just want to mention
five areas in town and one of the most
[1:49:34] one of the most important one was the
Glen Ridge district which I wrote the
[1:49:39] ordinance on 1998. I did the whole 12
blocks with all the photos of every
[1:49:44] house, the Bloomfield study, and last
during COVID, I actually walked the
[1:49:49] whole neighborhood again and updated all
the homes. I mean, it is just a a source
[1:49:56] of wonderful, wonderful homes. And it
really should be a historic district and
[1:50:01] if any district should be sort of
started to follow up on because I have
[1:50:07] done all the the base work. I mean, it
wouldn't it would take some work, but
[1:50:12] with the ordinance written and with the
photos of all the homes in the 12b block
[1:50:17] area and the description, which I have
read now upgraded, I think it would be
[1:50:24] wise to do that because coming down from
Sacramento now with SB9
[1:50:30] and the increase in density and
intensity of our neighborhoods and
[1:50:35] actually
going also into historic districts which
[1:50:40] would not be protected. I think if the
town could at least maybe get Glen Ridge
[1:50:45] in. Um it would be helpful to give some
protection for the density that is
[1:50:52] coming down from Sacramento. And like I
say, I mean most of the
[1:50:58] the hard work is done. I mean, we need a
historian to follow up on it, but it's
[1:51:05] every street in the neighborhood 12
blocks.
[1:51:08] » So, it sounds like the perhaps the
response to council is we do think
[1:51:11] that's worth looking into that that
there were other recommendations. There
[1:51:15] may be other areas and probably somebody
above my pay grade makes that decision.
[1:51:20] But
I Yeah, Commissioner S.
[1:51:24] » Um, just a question in general interest,
how would we go about doing that? I
[1:51:28] mean, we certainly heard tonight, you
know, about
[1:51:32] Johnson, potentially Glen Ridge,
>> um, and how would we go about
[1:51:36] identifying potential historic districts
in 2026?
[1:51:42] I I can start with a little bit of
feedback, but I'm sure that it would
[1:51:45] involve if council provided the
direction and and any funding uh
[1:51:49] allocation that would be necessary. It
would involve um likely someone with
[1:51:55] much more experience to look at the
archive files and make a recommendation
[1:52:01] as to, you know, any potential updates
and then go from there about
[1:52:05] recommendations on potential districts.
And then ultimately a a historic
[1:52:09] district needs to be approved by the
council. It's it's a council designation
[1:52:13] for an overlay.
>> And I just add through the chair, I
[1:52:16] mean, I think should the council provide
that direction, um, you know, there are
[1:52:21] potential implications for, you know,
assigning new districts. So, we probably
[1:52:26] would need to do pretty significant
outreach to the properties that would be
[1:52:30] affected by that so that their voices
could be heard as well. um because that
[1:52:34] may or may not have bearing uh should it
move forward.
[1:52:39] » All right, that's good to know. Thank
you. Um
[1:52:44] what about the next one then? Let's talk
about refreshing the Bloomfield survey.
[1:52:49] Um yes, I think this should be done. I
do not think it should be somebody in a
[1:52:53] car just driving by houses.
Um, I I I think if we are going to do
[1:52:59] this,
it would be great if it was a more
[1:53:03] thorough review of the homes. But
anybody else have thoughts?
[1:53:12] we just
a more thorough review of the homes
[1:53:16] against a updated set of criteria or
evaluation criteria because one of the
[1:53:21] things we run into here I want to hide
under the deis when we have an appeal
[1:53:26] come to us um because I just sometimes
feel things are squishy and
[1:53:31] [clears throat]
um we we don't necessarily have all of
[1:53:35] the facts and we it doesn't feel solid
and so I really desire for us to be far
[1:53:41] more factual and and you know criteria
and evaluation driven but I think that
[1:53:45] maybe comes through an update like we're
talking about.
[1:53:49] » Do you mean so normally we follow like
what is it the four or five criteria
[1:53:53] that gets put in front of us. Are you
actually meeting potentially more like
[1:53:58] architecturally specific criteria?
>> I guess what I'm even thinking about is
[1:54:02] when you take a look at the old
Bloomfield checklist that they used it
[1:54:05] would be first of all look at something
like that or other things other tools
[1:54:09] that are out there. In fact, you were
weren't you putting up a couple for us
[1:54:12] earlier or was Yeah. And so we need to
update that, I guess, is what I was
[1:54:17] saying.
>> That's what I was asking.
[1:54:18] » We need to update that.
>> Yeah. Okay. Any other thoughts on this
[1:54:22] item?
>> Yeah. Commissioner,
[1:54:24] » so that when we talk about refreshing
the Bloomfield survey, is that I know
[1:54:29] that it was done so long ago that I
guess my question is what homes are we
[1:54:33] targeting and is it feasible? So is it
is it to refresh the evaluation of
[1:54:37] everything that's 1941
and older or
[1:54:42] » to me this all ties together. So let's
say council says for example we're going
[1:54:47] to add the Glen Ridge historic district
right? So if we're going to do a refresh
[1:54:51] Bloomville survey it should include
that. If we decide that there's actually
[1:54:55] like a rolling something that's an
evaluation probably it should include
[1:54:59] those too if we're designating all of
these places as historic. Gotcha. I
[1:55:04] think
>> that's my opinion. Council can ignore
[1:55:07] that completely.
>> Follow by asking
[1:55:09] » I feel like they all tie together. Yes.
>> Sorry to be the dunce in the room, but
[1:55:13] what does that mean? Adopting pre-1941
to 70year ruling
[1:55:19] » down. Well, okay. You just made
reference to us. I maybe when we get
[1:55:23] there, we can define what that is
because I'm I'm just picturing like a
[1:55:27] 1936 house being pushed down a hill.
[1:55:34] Commissioner Bernett.
>> Yeah, I just want to mention um I mean
[1:55:37] that's what Saratoga does. I mean they
add to their inventory all the time and
[1:55:42] so rolling is 50 years
one. So I mean that's
[1:55:49] » and we're going to get there. That's two
bullet points down. So let me get to the
[1:55:52] next one and then I want to have a
thorough discussion.
[1:55:54] » Oh I thought we were talking about the
>> not yet. He's just jumping ahead.
[1:55:57] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Ignore him.
[1:56:00] » Okay. So um considering replacement
structure historically
[1:56:05] relevant
um
[1:56:09] is was the conversation and council or
has the conversation been I for example
[1:56:15] have a historic that was a historically
nice house and it burned down and I
[1:56:22] build the structure back exactly like it
but obviously it won't be exactly like
[1:56:26] it. Is that this discussion or what does
this mean?
[1:56:30] » The starting off point of this goes back
to a lot of the requests that the HPC
[1:56:36] reviews and make makes recommendations
on for removal from the inventory. Um,
[1:56:41] and when something's removed from the
inventory, um, it's no longer subject to
[1:56:46] review as a historic home because it
could be demolished, it could be added
[1:56:51] on to, it could be technically
demolished. I think the desire of the
[1:56:55] HPC in their letter to the council that
council grabbed on to here was there
[1:57:00] would there's a desire to maintain some
control over the design of the new
[1:57:06] structure to ensure that it's
historically relevant to honor what was
[1:57:10] there previously.
And I'm seeing a head nod from
[1:57:13] Commissioner Bernett who serves on the
HPC and was part of writing that letter.
[1:57:19] Yes, just to clarify that uh it could
still be considered a contributor even
[1:57:24] though if if it was rebuilt redone in
the same likeness and followed the
[1:57:29] guidelines then it should not be just um
it should al still reflect uh time and
[1:57:36] place even though it would be a new
build. If you look at the, you know, all
[1:57:41] the documents, this is this is
considered an okay thing to do. And so I
[1:57:48] think that that would be um something
where we addressed that it still would
[1:57:53] be historically re reent relevant even
though it was a new build. It would
[1:57:59] still fit into the neighborhood like it
had before burned down or something. So,
[1:58:06] that was the point we were trying to
make.
[1:58:08] » Okay. If So, if there's a new home being
built in a historic district, doesn't it
[1:58:15] already go?
>> And I'll make a clarification there
[1:58:18] because Commissioner Bernett touched on
a loaded word of contributor. Um,
[1:58:21] contributors are only located and not
negatively, it actually is a really
[1:58:25] salient point. Um, contributors are only
located in districts. So, within the
[1:58:29] district, we have a group of homes.
within the that group of homes, they are
[1:58:33] designated as contributors or
non-contributors. That is listed in the
[1:58:38] back of the residential design
guidelines. There's a thorough address
[1:58:41] by address list of the contributors. Um
to Vice Chair Burch's uh or Chair
[1:58:47] Burch's excuse me uh point within a
district if there is some
[1:58:53] project where the approval is to
demolish a home um the HPC maintains
[1:59:00] control from a design standpoint within
the district because the district itself
[1:59:05] is overlaid with the landmark and
historic preservation overlay zone. What
[1:59:10] I'm speaking about is outside of a
district, these pre-41 homes where there
[1:59:14] are no such things as contributors, and
this is also something that can be
[1:59:17] tightened up in the code. Those homes
once they are demolished, we just remove
[1:59:22] them from the inventory, they're no
longer subject to review by the HPC.
[1:59:29] And just to add on, so so the I think
the ask is that similar to the historic
[1:59:34] districts that the HPC there's some
desire to retain similar control for
[1:59:40] homes that may be removed from the
inventory andor demolished uh for future
[1:59:45] uh construction.
>> But if we took it off the registry,
[1:59:51] then that structure was already deemed
not relevant for whatever reasons. I
[1:59:57] mean, we've seen some lately that fell
under historic, but it was a box that
[2:00:01] was falling down, for example. Um, would
this I guess this would wind up being
[2:00:07] blanket. So, if if it was decided here
that, you know, it has been added on, it
[2:00:12] has been Frankenstein forever. You
cannot see the original relevance of it
[2:00:17] other than the fact that it's pre-1941.
every one of those would then still go
[2:00:22] to HBC even
or is it Yeah, I guess it would have to
[2:00:27] be blanket statement. Yes.
>> Yeah. I mean I think there's multiple
[2:00:30] options, right? So there's there's
varying degrees of how it could be
[2:00:33] implemented should that be the direction
that it goes. Um because I think I also
[2:00:37] hear a lot in HPC and it comes up when
these things rise to planning commission
[2:00:43] of a desire. I'll just I'm going to make
something up just for fun. house is
[2:00:47] totally Frankenstein, but we know what
the original house looked like. So, now
[2:00:51] we're getting back to this
rehabilitation or preservation. So, we
[2:00:55] may go back towards that angle, but uh
Commissioner Bernett could probably add
[2:01:00] some additional flavor on that.
[2:01:05] All I know is that during the so-called
windshield driveby, uh, it was a if it
[2:01:13] was given a plus and it was not in a
historic district at the time, it could
[2:01:18] be considered a contributor if it were
in a historic district. So, it did give
[2:01:23] it some qualities that yes, this house
if it were in a district, it would be
[2:01:29] considered a contributor. So that was a
further definition
[2:01:35] that part.
>> Okay.
[2:01:39] I'm going to speak up and then you guys
can say what you think. Um I think if it
[2:01:43] is not in a historic district and we
have already gone through the steps to
[2:01:47] remove it from the registry, then it's
just off the registry. I think that this
[2:01:53] could get excessively messy. If a house
has been Frankensteined, but we know
[2:01:58] that the house from 80 years ago was
relevant, but it's not there anymore, I
[2:02:03] don't see how we impose that on a
homeowner in both style, cost, and size,
[2:02:10] but that is that is my thought. That
feels a little overstep.
[2:02:15] » I I agree with that completely. I don't
have a lot to elaborate on it, but I do
[2:02:19] see it becoming very messy.
And so the the way I've been thinking
[2:02:24] about it is just that let's take a house
that you know an appeal was successful.
[2:02:30] It's off the registry and and you look
in that neighborhood and you see the
[2:02:34] character of the neighborhood, right?
And you would say
[2:02:38] maybe [clears throat] there is a desire
to really say we're going to maintain,
[2:02:44] you know, you got to maintain just the
character of that neighborhood and
[2:02:47] what's surrounding it. And I hate to
pick up this example because but let's
[2:02:52] go build an Icler, you know, in the
middle of what was maybe um a period
[2:02:58] representative neighborhood. And again,
like I say, that's the way I'm I'm not
[2:03:04] suggesting that, but it's sort of one
way to look at it that you would say,
[2:03:07] you know, you're taking down something
that did have at one point some value,
[2:03:14] some blah blah blah, and now we, you
know, we can you replace it with
[2:03:18] something that would be somewhat
historically
[2:03:21] relevant, not to the box,
>> you know, not to the box, right? So
[2:03:25] anyway,
>> but but we already do that. So if it if
[2:03:28] the idea is we then you know that house
maybe before it was Frankenstein aligned
[2:03:34] with this neighborhood, we already do
that. That doesn't have to be a historic
[2:03:38] thing. That's a you know neighborhood
compatibility and you look at that
[2:03:43] neighborhood and say, "Okay, what makes
sense?" We try. I I think we do pretty
[2:03:48] good most of the time, but I mean I'd
like to know, Commissioner Mayor, what
[2:03:52] do you think? I mean, I think this
conversation we're having now gets to
[2:03:55] the heart of sort of where the
challenges are and where the breakdown
[2:03:58] is in this whole entire process. And
again, I don't I don't think it it's the
[2:04:04] historic districts. I think those are
well defined and I think that works
[2:04:07] well. It's the pre-1941 outside the
districts. Um, you know, I know there's
[2:04:13] a desire by the town and by the HPC and,
um, you know, all of us, I think, here
[2:04:19] in the room tonight, you know, care
about the town and, uh, want to preserve
[2:04:23] its character and we have quite a nice,
uh, architectural legacy here. Um, but
[2:04:30] I think so, so there's there's a desire
to want to preserve the character,
[2:04:33] right? So that lens is being used to
evaluate pre-1941 properties that come
[2:04:38] before HPC to go off the registry. But
often times those uh properties that
[2:04:43] come are, you know, beyond repair. Uh
they're completely uh decrepit and
[2:04:49] structurally unsound.
Um, so and I touched upon this in my
[2:04:53] letter that was distributed as a desk
item, but I think part of the problem is
[2:04:58] that when someone comes to the HPC
asking to remove it from the registry,
[2:05:03] we don't know what they want to do with
it, but we know we know that they want
[2:05:06] to make it easier to do something with
it, right? But there's no standard
[2:05:12] really aside from our residential design
guidelines to evaluate what will come
[2:05:18] next after it. So I think there's this
desire to want to hold on to to to the
[2:05:24] character of the town and sometimes that
manifests itself in perhaps, you know,
[2:05:31] unnecessarily preserving something that
is unsafe and structurally unsound. Um,
[2:05:35] so I I I don't know what the answer is
to this. I'm just thinking out loud, but
[2:05:39] there seems to be a breakdown at w with
this. And I think part of it is the
[2:05:44] process.
>> No, agree. rather than the rather than
[2:05:49] the intent.
>> Yeah. Exactly. And I mean, I can just
[2:05:52] say all the years I was on HPC, you
know, it was you don't get to evaluate
[2:05:59] this home based on the next home. This
home stands on its own merit, its own
[2:06:04] architectural value, its own
significance. You don't get to decide
[2:06:09] about this house based on the next. And
I guess I have always kind of held that
[2:06:13] in mind. And I don't know if that would
be my thought, but
[2:06:17] » through the chair, if I could offer to
kind of piggy back off of Commissioner
[2:06:22] Mayor's statement, um I mean outside of
state laws that get around our rules and
[2:06:30] guidelines, if a home's removed from the
inventory and they go through the
[2:06:34] traditional process to redevelop the
property outside of a district, um we
[2:06:39] obviously use the residential design
guidelines and we have a professional
[2:06:42] architect peer view um specifically for
neighborhood compatibility is one of the
[2:06:47] components that they look at. So um I
know that the HBC loses their their
[2:06:51] their lens on it. Um and I do understand
the concern there, but I just wanted to
[2:06:56] make sure it's on the record that there
is not it's not a free-for-all um
[2:07:00] outside of of course state laws. And I
do want to um and secondly um I was
[2:07:04] handed a note from a member of the
audience that didn't get a chance to
[2:07:07] speak um during the public hearing and
um would request the public hearing be
[2:07:13] reopened for them to have an opportunity
to speak on the matter. That's at the
[2:07:17] discretion of the chair.
>> Yeah, of course. I think we want to hear
[2:07:22] what people have to say.
[2:07:27] You
Lee
[2:07:34] I appreciate the note on the frontly.
[2:07:58] I apologize, but I caught got caught in
traffic from Jazz in the plaz and it
[2:08:02] took me over 20 minutes to get here. Uh,
it wasn't the cars, it was all the pe
[2:08:07] people that I had to keep stopping for.
Um, but
[2:08:13] I had originally intended to come and uh
during the historic preservation
[2:08:18] committee meeting, I wasn't feeling
well, so I decided not to come. I'm
[2:08:23] feeling a little bit better now. And I
think I really would like to uh discuss
[2:08:28] a couple of things. And
it's going to be hard for me to know
[2:08:33] where to start, but what I've passed out
to you is the uh table of contents of a
[2:08:40] report that was done by uh Anne
Bloomfield and
[2:08:46] I have looked at some sections of that
report. I have put a check on the
[2:08:51] sections that I have been able to read.
Uh and I have to say it was a a big
[2:08:58] education. I understand a hell of a lot
more now about how the survey was
[2:09:04] developed, how it was implemented and uh
the people who did it, they were not
[2:09:10] nonprofessionals.
There were historians on the committee.
[2:09:14] There was uh
forget her name, but she was the one who
[2:09:20] started the history museum and she was
very involved in history. uh and there
[2:09:24] was a member of the staff as well as
members of the historic preservation
[2:09:29] committee.
What I want to start with is that once I
[2:09:35] got a hold of this and was able to read
the degree of detail that went into
[2:09:42] developing the survey and educating
those who were doing it that I felt it
[2:09:48] was really important to talk about how
the survey was rated and how it differed
[2:09:54] from the way uh National Park Service
rates The things that were rated or that
[2:10:02] were used to determine findings were
basically the same in both. The
[2:10:09] difference is that in the National Park
Service, they evaluated
[2:10:14] each of those four categories that we
look at individually
[2:10:22] and then uh related it to the fifth
category was which was um integrity. The
[2:10:29] way this was developed, it was developed
specifically because of the fact that
[2:10:35] and all of that relates to going back to
that all of the National Park Service
[2:10:40] criteria relate to uh structures that
are eligible for listing on the National
[2:10:48] Historic Register or on the state
register. Not they're not at the level
[2:10:54] of uh a small town and small town
feeling preserving that neighborhood
[2:11:01] feel. Can I go on?
Two more minutes. Okay. Okay. Um and
[2:11:09] what I found was that the uh process for
the survey when they actually did it,
[2:11:17] the driveby was only the first phase.
Then there was quite another number of
[2:11:21] phases. But looking at the criteria that
they used, she developed a criteria that
[2:11:28] was based on another uh historian uh and
it rather than evaluating things
[2:11:34] individually, it uh did it as a package.
They were all integrated. They were the
[2:11:41] same four five basic categories. Uh and
they had 14 different things below them.
[2:11:47] Each one was given a a a
rating based on a excellent, good, ve,
[2:11:56] very good, good, etc. And then that was
totaled and if it was above a certain
[2:12:01] number of points, uh, it was considered
as eligible for the inventory. The
[2:12:09] important thing is though is that that
survey and the final rating system
[2:12:16] included ratings for integrity and in
fact
[2:12:22] the integrity ratings were a negative
rating. So they had a real impact on
[2:12:27] whether something qualified or not. It's
not that integrity was not considered at
[2:12:33] all. It's it was a totally different way
of looking at things and frankly uh
[2:12:40] looking at what I've been able to read.
Uh I've really become educated. I have
[2:12:44] so many more questions. I've always had
questions. That's why you you have this
[2:12:49] before you in the first place. Although
I'm not speaking as a as a member of the
[2:12:53] committee. Uh I was I excuse me. I'm not
representing the committee, but I was
[2:12:59] the chair who requested that this all be
developed and I I would say that um God,
[2:13:08] I have so much more to say. Uh
yeah, unfortunately, we we've got to get
[2:13:12] to this now. So, thank you. But
>> no questions. [snorts]
[2:13:16] Yeah. Any questions for the speaker?
>> Oh, thank you very much, Lee.
[2:13:25] I assume I don't have to reclose this,
do I? Because Oh, I do. Okay. We're
[2:13:29] reclosing the public portion of the of
this item. Okay.
[2:13:34] Sure.
[2:13:38] » I'd like a question to
>> Joel or Sean. Um, is there a way I mean
[2:13:45] what brought up
>> I'm sorry. Is there a way that we can
[2:13:51] put this into a code? I mean I I think
that's that's where we're having issues
[2:13:56] here and where things get so as you were
saying squishy is we don't it's more
[2:14:02] just standards or
is there a way to I mean we've talked
[2:14:07] about this uh I've talked about it with
you and with Joel so and I I think there
[2:14:12] was a suggestion about how we could
maybe
[2:14:16] do that so it's a little easier to
understand and clearer for for
[2:14:20] everybody.
I think the ultimate goal, should the
[2:14:26] council provide us that direction, is to
see where it should live. What's the
[2:14:30] appropriate place for it to live,
whether that's in the uh the town code
[2:14:34] or in some other document. We again, we
don't have direction to do anything at
[2:14:39] this point. Um, so we're waiting for our
opportunity to go back to council,
[2:14:44] provide them some feedback, provide them
the feedback that you are giving us
[2:14:48] tonight and uh, receive direction from
the council
[2:14:51] » and through the chair. I think that you
know whether it's the findings,
[2:14:55] definitions, whatever it is, that's
really the last bullet of discussion up
[2:14:58] there.
>> Yeah, exactly.
[2:15:00] » And whether it belongs in the guidelines
and the code, some of it might belong in
[2:15:03] both, some of it might belong in one
rather than the other, right?
[2:15:06] » Um, so should we get that direction then
we would look into
[2:15:10] going through that process.
>> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sordy,
[2:15:14] » add kind of a followup on that because
um hopefully this isn't outside the
[2:15:18] bounds of what we're sort of talking
about, but we have these pre-1941 houses
[2:15:21] come up. The findings that we use are um
I think in a couple different places.
[2:15:26] They're mostly um they mostly live in
the residential design guidelines, but I
[2:15:31] don't think a single one of those
findings is actually an ordinance. And
[2:15:34] almost every single time we make a
decision as a commission, we do so based
[2:15:38] on findings that make direct reference
to ordinances. And so it's really a
[2:15:43] legal question. I guess I'm first of
all, I'm wondering if we've ever been
[2:15:46] challenged in court on a determination
related to a pre-1941 house. And if not,
[2:15:53] maybe the town attorney can vent your
guess about how difficult it would be to
[2:15:57] win such a case if somebody challenged
the decision. Um it's probably not
[2:16:01] appropriate to answer your second
question in this setting, but um what
[2:16:05] we're doing right now is the code
references the residential design
[2:16:08] guidelines and then the residential
design guidelines in turn reference the
[2:16:13] other standards that the town uses. Um
so it is more tenuous than is ideal and
[2:16:18] so ideally the town code would include
it codified.
[2:16:26] » Okay. Um all right. So then I the
adopting pre1941 to a seven-year rolling
[2:16:34] commissioner sorty.
[2:16:38] » What does that mean?
>> I can jump in on that. So when um the
[2:16:45] decisions were being made as to what the
historic inventory was going to include,
[2:16:50] there was a conversation at that time
about what the um appropriate sort of
[2:16:55] benchmark was. Um for example, SQA uses
50 years as something that needs to be
[2:17:02] looked at for potential impacts to a
historic resource and its environmental
[2:17:06] implications. Um, so obviously, um, in
1980 that would have been a 1930 home.
[2:17:12] Um, but now that's a 1976 home. Um, so
that conversation was had. I found some
[2:17:18] record of that in the minutes. And what
they decided was that the pre 1941 was
[2:17:24] the date. It was a hard date rather than
a rolling date, which in changes every
[2:17:28] year. And that was based on the um year
that the town had the first
[2:17:35] comprehensive set of assessment tax
assessment records for the town.
[2:17:40] » Okay. So if we applied to it to today,
it would be like 1956 if I'm doing my
[2:17:45] math right.
>> I mean at the time it's just sort of
[2:17:49] circumstantial that
>> when they adopted pre-41 it was about 50
[2:17:53] years ahead. Um but the they had a
specific discussion about that in the
[2:18:00] minutes. Um and that it wasn't about the
fifth years, it was about the tax
[2:18:03] assessment records.
>> Right. I'm just saying if we instituted
[2:18:06] it today, that's essentially what it
means. We would take today's date minus
[2:18:09] 70 and we would
>> that would be the threshold.
[2:18:12] » 1956.
>> Yeah. Okay.
[2:18:17] » Okay. Commissioner stop.
>> So how did the council arrive at 70
[2:18:20] years?
This was just a number that was thrown
[2:18:24] out. I'm, you know, sure it's open to
significant discussion should they
[2:18:28] should they get there.
[2:18:35] » I agree it should be updated. I'm trying
to wrap my head around because a lot of
[2:18:40] the houses in this town were built in
like what the 50s 60s that there's a
[2:18:47] point where damn near sorry every house
in town would have to go to the historic
[2:18:51] preservation committee and that is
overwhelming.
[2:18:55] It is. That's a lot of houses. Every
single one of them should not go to the
[2:19:00] historic preservation committee.
So I don't know if the idea is while we
[2:19:06] may
[2:19:10] maybe [clears throat]
change the date or something. Then
[2:19:12] there'd have to be some tightening
around what would those still be
[2:19:18] considered historically relevant because
I I live next to a lot of houses that
[2:19:24] were built in the 60s and I promise you
they're not historically relevant.
[2:19:28] So I like they're just Yeah. How would
we do this? Well, I think um like
[2:19:34] there's a group right off of Lascas
Boulevard. It's the Ikler homes. I mean,
[2:19:39] there's a whole little street full of
Ikler homes and that could be captured.
[2:19:44] I doubt that we would look at every
house in the near in the town, but I
[2:19:48] mean,
>> but who if we go to a rolling program,
[2:19:51] somebody has to get paid to assess that.
>> Yeah. Well, Saratoga does. I mean, you
[2:19:56] you would have members that you would
have certain standards, certain
[2:20:01] guidelines, certain kinds of
construction. Like I say, the Icler
[2:20:04] homes, there's I think eight or nine of
them there.
[2:20:07] » Well, wouldn't it almost be easier to
say if we're going to say we should do a
[2:20:10] better survey, like we're going to
update this and we're going to do
[2:20:13] survey, we just roll some of those into
it.
[2:20:15] » Yeah.
>> Instead of saying
[2:20:19] every track house that was built in the
60s is historic because that's what this
[2:20:24] means. No, that wouldn't
>> Yeah, I would rather we take and spend
[2:20:30] some good money on somebody just going
through and reevaluating houses and
[2:20:32] adding houses to the registry than
>> this. This does not feel appropriate,
[2:20:38] but I will take arguments if you guys
have any, but
[2:20:42] » no, it would be definitely
>> Commissioner Mayor is going to volunteer
[2:20:44] to be the person that evaluates every
one of them. I just
[2:20:46] » I agree with the chair on your
assessment. I don't think changing the
[2:20:50] year or implementing a rolling clock is
going to solve the problems that we're
[2:20:55] trying to solve here. It could
potentially make it worse. Um, so I
[2:21:00] don't think changing the year is is the
issue and I I know there was probably is
[2:21:06] going to be some action by the council
and it's going to have to be very well
[2:21:10] considered because the resources are
limited, right? So I I think we should
[2:21:15] keep that in mind as well that the
town's resources are limited and where
[2:21:18] do we want to
take that I I
[2:21:22] you know there's been I'm sorry to go
back up to the bullet point about the
[2:21:26] Bloom Bloomfield survey but that also
feels like it could be cost prohibitive.
[2:21:30] I'd rather the town's resources be spent
more specifically on when something does
[2:21:38] come to uh HPC and there's, you know,
questions about, you know, should this
[2:21:45] stay on the registry or should it be
taken off, you know, I'd rather town's
[2:21:48] resources be utilized to consult an
expert on that sort of thing because
[2:21:56] instead, you know, because they're not
all all the pre-1941s outside of
[2:22:00] historic districts are not coming all at
the same time, right? They kind of come
[2:22:03] one by one. So, uh I think that I I I
personally would rather the town's
[2:22:10] resources be spent on that. But I do
think the second bullet point, the
[2:22:13] historic district, I think perhaps
looking at expanding uh that looking
[2:22:19] back at what was previously assessed
might be also a good use of resources.
[2:22:23] » Yeah, I agree with you completely. That
makes a lot more sense.
[2:22:28] » Any other comments?
commissioners. All right.
[2:22:33] So then updating and clarifying
definitions and required findings for
[2:22:37] determining a historic status.
So I'm going to be candid. There's only
[2:22:42] one person that sits up here that I feel
is qualified,
[2:22:47] you know, professionally to probably
talk about some of the,
[2:22:52] you know, the nuances at least
architecturally of this. I do think all
[2:22:58] of us agree they need to be updated and
I know that you've got some comments I
[2:23:02] think you've thought about you should
make
[2:23:06] but I actually like the idea of maybe
getting other other people that are I
[2:23:11] could talk to you about the structural
components of it and everything all day
[2:23:14] but I don't know this just feels like
only thing I'd be comfortable saying is
[2:23:20] yes we should but commissioner sorty did
you have anything you wanted to add
[2:23:24] because you were talking about this
earlier
[2:23:28] today earlier or at a different area.
>> Oh, just related to the five findings.
[2:23:35] The typical use of the five findings.
Yeah, I mean only that um
[2:23:42] yeah I well part of it is just process.
Um, I think that
[2:23:48] all it says, our direction generally is
all it says is that you shall consider
[2:23:52] these five things and there's no
specific direction that says you shall
[2:23:56] make a positive determination regarding
all five. And so I just find it
[2:24:02] generally inconsistent or I don't know,
maybe just difficult to wrap my brain
[2:24:06] around. Sometimes the determination that
a house should not be taken off the
[2:24:10] register revolves around the opinion of
the HPC that one particular finding
[2:24:17] can't be met but the other four clearly
are. And so just the logic of it I find
[2:24:22] challenging. And then more than that I
think other commissioners have shared
[2:24:27] this opinion that it's it does feel a
little biased. it does feel a little bit
[2:24:31] like the opinions coming from an
advocacy point of view and not
[2:24:35] necessarily an objective party
evaluating those findings and
[2:24:40] um and weighing in and having that
objective party of course be qualified
[2:24:44] to make the determination. So that's
been my feeling in almost every case
[2:24:48] when we're faced with um removing a a
house from the 1941, you know, pre-1941
[2:24:54] list. So
those are my comments.
[2:24:58] » Yeah. Anything to add, Commissioner
Mayor?
[2:25:02] » Yeah, I mean I do think the comment
earlier about, you know, getting a round
[2:25:06] table of local architects to give their
input is a really important part of
[2:25:09] this, but even beyond architects,
there's a a special discipline called
[2:25:14] historic preservation, and there are
professionals trained specifically in
[2:25:17] historic preservation. So, I definitely
think, you know, there should be some
[2:25:22] resources allocated to consulting with
those folks.
[2:25:26] » I I agree. Any other comments? Anything
else? I mean, we touched on everything.
[2:25:33] Is there anything else that you guys
want to fall back and talk about before
[2:25:37] we close this topic?
No.
[2:25:42] Then I'm going to ask staff, did that,
at least as far as this getting passed
[2:25:47] on, did that give you what you need or
is there anything that you maybe still
[2:25:51] had in your mind that needed to perhaps
our thoughts be clarified?
[2:25:55] » Uh, no. I think you know the aim was to
have a discussion. So a discussion's
[2:25:59] been had. Um I will daylight that any
guidance provided from the council is
[2:26:05] very likely once we start getting
work together um to make its way through
[2:26:11] the historic preservation committee and
the planning commission before it goes
[2:26:14] to the the council. Um that's what I
envision. Obviously it depends on the
[2:26:18] the direction of the council. Um so this
is a a discussion that again this
[2:26:22] information will be provided to the
council. um as we move forward and uh we
[2:26:27] look forward to receiving their
direction.
[2:26:30] » Thank you, Mr. Mullen. All right, we
will now Is there a report from the
[2:26:35] director of community development?
>> No report this evening.
[2:26:38] » All right. Any any subcommittee reports?
I know you do.
[2:26:42] » Yes, we had a historic preservation
committee meeting this afternoon. There
[2:26:47] were uh three items and one business
other business. Um, two of the items we
[2:26:53] would we were not able to hear because
we didn't have a quorum. So, we ended up
[2:26:57] with one which was to remove the
property from the historic inventory and
[2:27:02] it was uni unanimously voted to remove
it. It did not have it did not meet the
[2:27:09] five criteria. So, it was removed and
then another business it was just a
[2:27:15] preliminary review uh to uh for exterior
modifications. this person had come back
[2:27:22] three times and so we arrived at a good
solution for him. So that that was all
[2:27:29] » good. Great.
>> Yeah. Please go ahead.
[2:27:32] » Can I ask the director to just give us a
little update on some of the
[2:27:36] applications we saw recently that have
made it to council. I think Oka Road
[2:27:40] went last week and Twin Oaks
just where they stand. And
[2:27:44] » yeah, I think we discussed Twin Oaks and
Oka at the last meeting. Um but uh so
[2:27:50] just for further information because I
can't we've had so many meetings this
[2:27:55] month. Um Ochre Road was approved by the
the council. Um Twin Oaks was continued
[2:28:04] and requested some additional
information, not too date certain. Um so
[2:28:08] we will be working with the applicant
and consultants to get some additional
[2:28:11] information. And then last week uh also
the West Valley Muslim Association was
[2:28:17] open just for the matter to discuss
requested continuences. So ultimately
[2:28:22] that was continued to a date uncertain I
believe as well. Um so those will still
[2:28:27] Twin Oaks and the West Valley Muslim
Association are to be continued.
[2:28:33] » Thank you.
>> All right. Any other commission matters?
[2:28:36] Commissioner Stump.
>> This would just be a followup. U Mr.
[2:28:39] Pollson,
do you see any possibility of the West
[2:28:45] Valley Muslim Association being remanded
back to the commission? [clears throat]
[2:28:49] I'd never venture a guess, but that is
one of the options on the table.
[2:28:57] » Okay. Um, if there's no other
commissioner matters, the meeting is
[2:29:01] adjourned. Thank you.