Good.

Alright.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to tonight's Planning Commission meeting for the City of Belmont.

It is Tuesday, February 3rd, and it's 7 01.

We're about to get going.

We'll give some instructions on participation for tonight's meeting.

Firstly, meeting attendance.

It's streamed live via the city's website at Belmont.gov.

And it's available through the Zoom app and the instructions for accessing this particular meeting are included in the agenda.

Instructions for public comment.

One can comment in chambers by submitting a speaker slip to the clerk, and you have three minutes of comment from the lectern.

And again, the instructions for doing that are included in the agenda.

And then lastly, if we have a written comment received by 4 p.m.

today, that comment will be uh noted uh slash potentially summarized into the record tonight's meeting.

So with those preliminary instructions concluded, let's take a roll call vote, please.

All right.

Um Commissioner Adam Kevich here.

Kramer?

Here.

Chair Coolidge?

Here.

Majeski?

Present.

Twig?

Jadala?

Here.

Okay, all present.

Great.

Uh next item two is our Pledge of Allegiance.

So please stand.

The flag is here.

I'll allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Institute the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Individual.

Liberty and justice for all.

Okay, thank you for for that.

Next is item three, which is our community forum.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda within our purview.

And again, there'll be three minutes for comment on this item.

See first that there's any uh speaker slips in chambers for uh item three, our community forum.

Um no speaker slips in house.

Great.

Anyone on Zoom?

No raise hands on Zoom.

Great.

And uh Director DeMello, do we have any uh written comments received for item three before 4 p.m.

today?

We have not.

Great portion.

Yep.

Great.

That concludes uh the community forum.

Um item four is commissioner announcements and agenda amendments.

I'll see firstly if we have any uh announcements from the dais.

No, I have nothing.

Um next, we'll see from staff if there are any um amendments to tonight's agenda.

Given the brevity of tonight's agenda, we have no amendments.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

That concludes item four.

So item five is our consent business.

We have uh two items uh under item five.

We have item five A, which is the meeting minutes from the January 6th, 2026 meeting, and then we have five B, which is the meeting minutes for January 20th, 2026.

So I'll see first if there's any um changes, questions, comments, concerns about um either of the minutes as submitted.

Um it's it's not a question, just one.

There's one area that that could be more accurate, but it's not that important under the the January 20th under commission discussion and deliberations.

Um all commissioners like we all spoke positively about the project, but then everyone was given credit for outlining the meeting of TMA and the prospect of balancing ratio to jobs, and that was really just one commissioner.

I don't so I don't know if it matters.

Like just I mean it provides more context that way.

Um, so if it's just um commissioners spoke proudly about the project period, um commissioner Adamkovich gave credit or gave credit to staff for outlining the transportation, look forward to the prospect of balancing jobs.

Yeah, we could we could certainly add that yeah, that change.

I mean, yeah, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

I've seen sometimes staff say Commissioner X said blah blah blah, Commissioner Y questioned, but sometimes it just says the commissioners discussed, and I'm totally fine with that.

I mean it made my remarks and y'all kind of nodded, so I think I'm I'm totally fine either way.

That's all I had.

Great, and differently leave that to staff discretion to see if that's something that um should be uh corrected or clarified.

Okay, sure.

Okay.

Um I had two requested, um, let's call them clarifications for the January 6th meeting minutes.

Yeah, please.

Um, so on page two, the second paragraph, um, where it says Chair Coolidge opened the public hearing and then describes the public hearing.

Um there's a particular sentence here which says the public also spoke on the appropriateness of the current location for the modest rate of growth that Charles Armstrong School is proposing.

I didn't feel that that captured all of the public remarks.

Uh the describing it as a modest rate of growth, it's an opinion, and I think some of our public members thought that the growth was actually quite significant, and so I propose that we strike the words modest rate of.

So it just uh says the public spoke on the appropriateness of the current location for the growth that Charles Armstrong School is proposing.

I think that would be a more accurate characterization of what we heard that night.

Um the second proposal, second amendment or edit I'd like to propose if you go down a little further under um commissioners discussed.

Um, let's see.

The the last under commission discussion and deliberation, that first sentence.

Yes, it says commissioners discussed the staggered start times, voted it off.

If you go to the end of that paragraph, it says commissioners also discussed for comparison the gym at Ralston Middle School as being twice as high and four times as square footage as the proposed gym at Charles Armstrong's school.

Um I agree with that, and that I think we should add comment while also not being located near a property line that abuts a residential lot.

Um I feel like the minute says written, leave the impression that we felt that the two gyms were comparable.

Whereas as I recall our discussion, we specifically noted that that gym is not near the lot line of any residences.

And so I felt that was an important nuance to capture, so to be extending that sentence just to say, uh while also not being located near a property line that abuts a residential lot.

So I'm proposing two amendments to these minutes just to try to slightly better capture what I think was the spirit of the discussion.

Okay.

Well, um I agree with those.

Okay, why don't we take these one at a time then and maybe two separate motions?

I think we'll take a motion.

Um exactly.

Okay.

So uh I'm motion that we amo uh I motion that we amend the minutes of January 6th uh on page two in the second paragraph into public hearing to strike the words modest rate of uh from the sentence I previously described.

I'll second that.

Cool.

Okay.

And then in the second clarification.

Where are we making two separate motions?

No, I think sorry, I I was I was unclear.

I don't take I think we should take two separate motions regarding approval of the separate items by the M5B.

I think that there should be one unified motion for clarification amendments to item 5A.

Thank you.

I should have been clear now.

In what I proposed.

All right.

I make a motion we approve the minutes of January 6th item 5A with the two amendments I'm proposing.

One to strike the words modest rate of from the public hearing description, and the second to amend a phrase to the end of the sentence about the gym at Ralston to say uh while also not being located near a property line that abuts a residential lot.

I'll speculate.

Great.

It's been moved and seconded.

Let's take a vote, please.

Alright, uh, Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Aye.

Kramer?

Aye.

Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Majeski?

Aye.

Twig, I.

Aye.

Okay, motion passes six zero um for the minutes of January 6, 2026, um, with the two amendments as mentioned by Commissioner Adam Kevich.

Great.

And then we'll move on to item uh 5B.

I don't know if Commissioner Judal wanted to raise a formal motion to clarify along the line you described.

So that one under commissioner discussion and dilations.

I um recommend we change it to Commission spoke positive spoke positively of the project period.

Uh Commissioner Adam Kwich gave credit to the staff for blah blah blah for the rest of the sentence.

I second.

Great.

It's been moved and seconded.

Let's take a vote, please.

Okay, Commissioner Adam Kevich.

Hi.

Kramer?

Aye.

Chair Coolich?

Aye.

Majeski.

Abstain.

Okay.

Twig?

Aye.

Vidala?

Aye.

Okay, motion passes five zero with one abstain for the minutes of January 20th, 2026, along with the um one amendment as mentioned by Commissioner Jardella.

Fantastic.

Uh great.

Thank you for that.

Those are, I think, helpful clarifications to the minutes, which is always important.

Um, and so that concludes uh item five, which is our consent business, and we now have item six, which is our study session, and we have no items um uh for this uh uh item six.

All right, great.

Uh we now turn to um our public hearing portion.

Uh we have one um matter, it's item 7A.

It involves uh 1530 Solana Drive, and it's a single family design review.

Uh before um turning to the staff presentation.

I'll first see if uh anyone has any um any ex party communications um recusals or anything else to disclose regarding this matter.

Um we'll start, I guess, um on this end.

Okay, uh site visit.

Site visit.

Uh nothing to report.

I have nothing to report.

Uh site visit only.

Nothing to report.

Great, thank you.

Planner Ruiz.

I imagine you have a presentation.

I certainly do.

Love it.

Let's do it.

Hello, Commissioners.

This is for a single family tier three design review at 1530 Solana Drive.

For the proposal, they are proposing two additions, uh, one at the ground floor of 105 square feet, and a substantial new addition on the upper story in order to create a second floor of 1,408 square feet.

The total for this addition be 1,513 square feet.

In regards to their lot summary, their lot size is 15,253 square feet with a noted slope of 35.40%.

Um this would normally uh require a floor area ratio of 0.344.

However, due to the large lot size, they have a different uh calculation for the maximum total floor area, in which they in which case they have a 3,500 square foot base, plus 15% of their log size different minus 10,000 square feet.

Therefore, their maximum gross floor area for this location is actually 4,288.

For the existing home size, it is 1,916, with the total proposed being 3,429.

Uh, this is underneath the noted max of 4,228, as well as the proposed floor area ratio of 0.225 is still within that floor area ratio of 0.344.

In regards to the findings that are needed to uh needed to be addressed for the design review, um it has to be well designed, articulated, and consistent that public views will not be impacted and compliant with residential design guidelines and criteria.

The site plan for the proposed setbacks, uh the home itself is largely away from the required front, um being 89 feet.

Uh the right and left portions of the quote unquote side yards will be 13 feet away for the new second story, and the rear will be 15 feet.

The required setbacks for this location is 15 on front, sides being nine, and a rear of 20.

Uh, due to the interesting uh composition for how the lot is laid out.

Um the primary front is in this portion here where the courtyard or court area is, and the immediate rear is the one directly parallel to it, and that is why everything else is aside, as there's only be able to have one rear, and that has to be the most perpendicular.

For the front elevations, the existing home is a single story ranch style house.

Um you can see that it is uh the height is not very tall, and that the it is currently uh designed with hardy uh sideboards that are vertical slotted.

The front elevation now um you can see the mixing and matching of materials with the off-white bait, off white and beige stuckos.

Um the uh stone materials to the rear for the other portions of the home.

Um the home is also is being articulated and having a second-story step back, in which case you can continue to see the new windows on the upper story as well as the just sort of position compared to the original set uh original one-story home.

In regards to the rear elevation, and again it continues the existing hardy uh sideboards, um, as well as the simplicity of just one door and a single small window.

And now you're able to again see that uh rear facade with the second story stepbacks being implemented in the front or intimate at the rear on the second story, um, and giving that more articulated side points.

The left elevation, you can see more.

Um, this is where the current uh I guess courtyard area is, and now you can see how they are maintaining that deck but redesigning it.

You can again see more of the second story um facing in this entrance to like the rear of their lots, which has more of a forested area, and getting more light.

Right elevations, uh again, continuing these uh single story ranch, and now you're able to again clearly see more of that stone material and see how that the uh actual upper story is set off from the main portions of the home in a clearer area and where the actual portions of the covered porch uh would be.

Uh for the actual color and materials board, there is also a 3D representation uh to have a better perspective, uh, but they will have a gray charcoal matte finish for the window trims as well as the eaves, um, a classic gray roofing with stone uh veneer of mixed match uh beige materials, uh beige painted stucco as well as off-white uh stucco in order to give more design and color.

In conclusion, the staff recommends for approval.

Uh great.

Let's maybe see if the applicant has a presentation before we take uh questions from the commission.

Yeah, I just sort of wanted to add uh push the mics.

Kevin, please, up to the mic.

Right, sorry, thank you.

Thank you.

I just sort of wanted to add that um the main emphasis of the design was to take advantage of the awesome views down the hill.

So sort of all the magic of the house is that I guess it's the left side, and one of the reasons why we sort of um it was sort of obvious there.

But one of the reasons I didn't use the articulation system for this was because the front facade, which is the street side, is kind of the side of the house, and so to try to make the percentages work with uh sort of the design vernacular that the articulation kind of consists of wasn't really feasible.

So I did a lot of uh daylight plane work, and one of the difficult parts of that was because it wasn't a square site, I had to use all this descriptive geometry to shoot these planes at skewed angles.

So if you look at that plan set where you see that the daylight plane um drawings, you'll see that.

And then on top of that, um, we really spent a ton of time um just doing iteration after iteration of second floor plans here, trying to locate where the stairs might go.

Uh and I think my clients were surprised at how much time we spent on that, but just sort of getting it to where it was really, you know, kind of structurally sort of efficient at the same time taking, like I said, advantage of the downhill views.

Um we sort of spent a long time, so that's kind of uh mainly what I wanted to point out here, and then of course you guys saw the presentation by Jeremy, so I think he added you basically said everything we did.

Um, so yeah, so all those windows there are just these nice huge windows.

The clear-story windows are kind of the uh spaces where there's some bathrooms because on the other side you have the stairs and kind of a hallway that sort of feeds these three rooms.

And then um you guys went to this visit the site, you notice that it it it rises pretty steeply on the right side, such that even if you go like like this cut plane there, yeah.

See that this right side that that slope goes up about 40 feet, so even though we kind of have a bigger second floor uh or two-story element that's the staircore, it seemed appropriate to keep it on this side.

Of course, again to take advantage of the views on the other side, and then uh and it I don't know if it's super clear there, but then we also added kind of that little box of stuff which is the front door space.

Uh they didn't really have a great entrance.

The original entrance was right on that on the side of that building, and you literally just walked kind of right into the kitchen.

There was no entry closet or anything like that.

So it was kind of nice to be able to add that piece on there and kind of help try to break up that double story massing, but kind of maintaining that stone.

I kind of like the idea of it sort of anchoring the house on the high on the excuse me, on the high side, and uh so that's kind of where we got to this.

And so that's it.

So thanks for your consideration.

Great.

Thank you for those additional comments.

Uh sir, can you identify yourself for the public record so we can make sure we captured for our minutes?

Yeah, Michael Ryan, I'm the architect.

So, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Great.

Because you're here, I'll see if the if your clients wanna say anything, they're it's not required, but just want to give them the opportunity.

Great.

Um, so let's um I think first um see if there's any questions from the dias and them open to public hearing after that.

Um do you want to start?

Can you just clarify the rear setbacks?

Because I think in our staff report it says that they're 40 feet.

Requirement is 20 feet.

What you showed here was that they're actually only 18 feet.

I know it's really weird with the lot line being double, but can you the staff report here says 40, and you said it's not meeting the required 20, so I just got very confused.

Oh, pardon, that was uh misedit then.

Um the staff report is correct that it needs to be at least 20 feet to be away.

And it is more than 20.

And it's more than 20.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

That was my question.

Thanks.

I don't have any questions.

I had a couple of clarifications.

Um so the setbacks are taken from the lot line, but the lot line is not the fence line, and as part of the application, there's no requirement to reestablish the fence line.

Uh there's not a requirement to necessarily adjust a fence line as that is in the cessory structure and due to whether it neighbors' concerns or how they wish to lay out their uh fence, we do not get into that kind of civil matter, unfortunately.

Okay.

And then in so the rear side setback kind of down the top right hand corner, because I know obviously there's a couple of side setbacks.

You have uh the canopy projecting into this setback, which I know we can do, but it says it doesn't a notation for a downs a downspout.

But is it also a column and a down pipe there?

So we've got structure and the canopy projecting into the side yard, and is that within the requirements of what we're allowed for a covered porch?

For a porch, they're able to project portions.

Um, there is a section nine exemption for them.

Um I guess if for the downspouts portions, um, that is per public works for how they are to do the utility for the at least concerns for erosion.

I'm uh can you repeat the I'm talking about projecting into the side into setback?

So the so you've got side setback B.

And you've got the corner of the canopy projecting into it.

And then on the one of the floor plans you've got what looks like a a downspout for the gutzer, but I I presume it would also have a column supporting that corner, but it's in none of the elevations and it's in none of the visuals.

I just wondered what exactly is a constraint, and is that something we're happy with projecting into the side setback?

An axilia feature that is needed for the police for the are you talking about for like a downspout for the home for like a rain gun?

I'm first asking what is it because it's different on each drawing, and I'm second asking, are we happy with it projecting into setback given that we have requirements on what's allowed to project?

So do you see the do you see the corner that I mean?

Side and B.

The site plan might be more helpful for us to answer the question.

If if we could call up the plan.

I'm only looking for a clarification.

It's I'm sure it's something straightforward.

It just looks like we don't usually see things projecting quite so far into the side setback.

And I just wondered exactly what the channel is for.

So you see the top here on the left hand corner on this one, side setback B at the top.

So there.

Yeah, that corner.

It projects into the side setback by about three feet.

And some of the drawings show what looks like could be a column or sometimes annotated as a DS, presumably downspout.

Portions of that is already the existing home.

Um I can say that much.

And then I will leave it to the architect to further explain what the uh reason for that.

It's just it's just it stands out because it cuts right across what you're annotating as the side-setback line by quite a bit.

Yeah, um, so we know that sort of eaves and chimneys and things can project.

At that side of the house where that overhang is, uh the that eave is about five feet deep.

The building itself is not there, so the upper roof that can see kind of that's that sets back from the lower roof.

Yeah, is um where the actual wall is for the existing floor down below, so that whole bit there is is all overhang, uh, four or five feet deep.

Um, but that's not on the existing plans.

Yeah, it is.

Okay.

It's not shown.

The overhang.

Uh it's part of the computer model.

I mean, it it has to be there.

Sorry, on the propose, on the existing building?

Yeah, go to the so you see um corner.

So sorry.

Okay.

Yeah, all of that is overhang, and the the the wall is is back, you can kind of see the the PG and E meter with the little little rounded job there.

And that that gray glass structure is beyond.

So that's a a glass panel that's part of the living room that's say twenty feet that way.

Um so yeah, there's no there's no downspout or anything coming off of that roof structure there.

Uh and I could probably rework a little bit on that corner if also if people have a really uh aversion to it.

I mean, I could also work with the clients.

Maybe we can pull that back a little bit as part of the project if that was really just to clarify it's an existing roof and there isn't no downspout or post.

Correct.

Yeah, that's really the question.

If it's existing, then so be it, but it's not as clear as it could be because and especially because it's highlighted as couldn't write through that setback line.

Yeah.

And the roof con the roof condition looks like it's pitched in the proposed, but looks like it's flat in some of the.

It's almost flat, but it's it's just very shallow, like a one in twelve kind of pitch.

Okay, so it's allowed in the setback because it's exactly.

So it's not exacerbating the nonconformity because it already exists.

And one of the things I'm hoping to do also is I want to because the roof is sort of very flat.

I don't want to put kind of big gutters around.

I want to have like the hidden ones behind the eave.

And then maybe if I can get it to where it's not the most difficult thing in the world, but to hide the gutter, the downspout itself in the wall thickness and get it to the ground.

So I think on the first floor plan where there's the new um front entry, you'll see a little corner of stuff walls that form a little box in the corner.

Yeah, I saw that.

Yeah, that was where I'm planning to try to hide another like a a downspout.

So I'm I'm you know, so as I figure this out a little bit more during the construction documents part of this, I'm gonna try to get all that.

It's definitely it's a worthy pursuit for the look of it, but it actually makes them really hard to maintain.

Yeah, no, I concealing that.

I sort of want to go over that with the client and I kind of try to find either a builder that really knows what he's doing or uh, you know, really solid detail that can make that work.

But yeah, I I totally agree.

But it kind of acts like a flat roof, even though it's got a bit of slope to it, and so I was trying to maintain that.

Okay, thank you.

I I have no questions.

Okay.

Great.

So um any follow-up questions?

All right.

Seeing none, I think we'll now open the public hearing uh for this item 7A.

Um, presuming there are no uh in-house speaker slips.

No in the speaker slips.

Only us here.

Um so uh maybe we'll see if anyone on Zoom has any um public comment on this item 7a.

Um no raised hands on Zoom.

Okay.

And Director De Mello, do we have anything on C dev?

As fast as I could boot up my computer and get to the page, there's no one on on the uh on the Comdev site.

Great.

The comments on this item.

Okay.

So we've um no comments in chambers, nothing on Zoom and nothing um in writing.

So I think we can now uh close the public hearing um and uh turn to commissioner deliberation.

Um anyone wanna take point here.

I'm happy to.

Yeah.

I mean, I was interested, I was interested that you mentioned the articulation and that you didn't choose that route because to me that looks really well articulated.

Like the volumes uh giving uh what I would see at first glance is meeting those articulation requirements.

So I feel like it's really well articulated in the way you've broken down that volume.

Um I also thought that made sense that you'd worked up many iterations of the second floor plans because it really does come across and you can see that that it's a very honed plan, it's very locked in.

So I feel like that extra work comes across and it's really helped.

And lastly, it was really helpful to hear you speak about it because it really uh showed us what you've been thinking and uh it it kind of brought the plan to life.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Sure.

Um I echo your comments and thank you for the clarification on that corner, because it is definitely way in there.

Um thank you for the good presentation.

Um I generally like this, I can make the findings.

Uh I often give my little architecture two cents.

I I think you should extend the roof at the entry to for at least four feet, so there's a dry pathway to the front door, um, and move the gate to the side there so that you can be under it the whole time.

But that's just my two cents.

Um anyway, uh yeah, nice nice house.

I think it looks like a good addition.

Great.

Um I can make the findings as well.

I think it's a very nice design, as as others have commented.

Um I also like the fact that there happens to be mature landscaping, so less um, you know, obstruction for for the neighbors, which is nice.

Great.

Sorry.

I I can make the findings.

Yep, nothing to add, I can make the findings.

Great.

Yeah, and uh as can I.

I mean, a tricky site, I think well done with um kind of dealing with all the nooks and crannies that are kind of existing there.

So um, and thank you for the presentation.

Um great.

Looks like we have a consensus um and so would anyone like to uh move a revolution uh resolution, excuse me.

Revolution or resolution.

You choose.

Might depend on politics, but go ahead.

Um I will make a motion of a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Belmont approving a single-family design review at 1530 Solana Drive, application number 2025-0049.

Great.

So second.

Sure, I'll second vote.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Let's take a vote, please.

All right, Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Aye.

Kramer.

Aye.

Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Majeski?

Aye.

Twig, aye.

Jadala, aye.

Motion passes 60 for 1530 Solana Drive, single family design review.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Uh this matter is appealable within 10 calendar days.

And congratulations and and good luck with your project.

Yeah.

Okay.

That uh concludes our the public hearings portion of our agenda.

And next is item eight, which is other business and updates.

See if we have any thing under that section.

Director DeMello.

Yeah, so commissioners, thank you for your work on the minutes tonight.

Really appreciate you approving both of them tonight.

They are timely considering that we're scheduling public hearings for both of those items before the council.

The first one, the Armstrong School Project, will be on the council's February 10th agenda.

And then the 1301 Shoreway project is is tentatively scheduled to be on the council's February twenty fourth agenda.

So having these minutes completed uh really helps us as we start to fill out the staff report folders for the council.

So, uh only other um announcement, just a reminder your commission appreciation dinner is February 23rd.

It's at Marvin Gardens on Old County Road.

Hadn't been there in a while and walked in and wow, what great space.

Great space.

Great space.

So I'm not here to plug, just here to say, wow, what a great space.

And it's gonna be great to see all of you.

Hopefully you can all attend, and uh looking forward to a great evening.

So and that's all I have.

Okay.

Yeah.

Great.

Anyone else have anything to add?

No.

Okay.

Then uh with that, we can adjourn tonight's meeting, and it is 7 33.

Nice.