This is the call to order for the April 2nd, 2025 regular meeting of the town of Woodside Planning Commission. We'll start with a pledge of allegiance. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? I want to do roll call first. Yes, I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go. Chair weaver. your. Commissioner Aptho. Here. Commissioner Goenarico. Yeah. Commissioner tober. Vice Chair Gart is noted absent. Are there any changes to the published agenda? There are no changes. Right Right we will start with the public communications on topics that are not on tonight's agenda that would your relevant to the town of Woodside and its planning commission. if there's no one from the public present in the room, is there anyone online that would like to speak on a topic that is not on tonight's agenda? If you wish to speak online, please use the raised hand feature. And I see no raised hands. Given that, we will close the public comment period on non agenda items and move to the first item on the agenda, which is the consent calendar, which is a review and approval of our minutes from our February meeting. Do any of the members of staff or the planning commission which to make any adjustments or elaborations to the recorded minutes before they're approved? None from me. None. So we will entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar, which is the February minutes so moved Second Chair weaver Yes, mr. Apah yes, mr. Gonerko. Yeah, and commissioner topper We will move on to the second item on tonight's agenda, which is a project at 240 Lindenbrook Road, which involves the consideration of the granting of two variances, and I believe that Sarah is going to present this for staff. you. So I will be introducing the project that 240 Lyndon Brook Road. So the project includes the construction of an interior remodel and an addition to an existing single family residence. The addition consists of extending the exterior wall heights in two locations within the existing footprint of the residents. The main residence is located within the required front and rear setback and is therefore considered to be nonconforming. The residents also exceeds the maximum size that's allowed. The site's pretty unique because it's about a quarter of an acre in size, but it's in the SCP-5 zoning district, which requires a minimum of five acres. The existing home was built in the 1930s, I believe, which is before the town was incorporated. The site currently has a main residence and a shed. So it includes, the project includes an interior remodel as well as addition to some of the exterior walls in order to create a taller ceiling height that is more usable and practical. The footprint of the main residents will remain the same. The increase in the floor area is due to the plate height being increased which contributes to the calculated floor area. So the on the elevations you can see where the walls are being extended. So on the top of the page is the proposed elevation and the bottom is the existing. I'll just kind of zoom in a little bit so you can see better. But on the top, you can see this darker shaded area. That's where the wall is being extended. So compared to the existing, it's about like a foot or so of increase in light height in that location. On the side elevations, you can see similarly similarly this is the existing elevation here that's being extended by about and gets about one to two feet on both sides so you'll see that on. So here, this wall, so it's being increased by about a foot and the roof is being pitched to kind of match that increase in height. At no point is the, either the wall or the roof becoming any taller than it is existing. Let me just show the rear elevation. You can see it's in this location on the bottom compared to the top. It's about a foot increase. And then the roof line changes to a, like a gable roof. And then as well over here, it's just a little increase right in that location. So the reason that the project is before you is because there are two variances being requested. The first is a variance to the setback because there is an increase in the floor area due to the increased wall height. This requires a variance to increase floor area within a setback. And the second variance is for the increased floor area because the woodside bases the floor area on plate heights. And so the additional increase in plate height would increase the floor area because the wood side bases the floor area on plate heights. And so the additional increase in plate height would increase the floor area by about 29 square feet. So staff believes that due to the shape size and topography of this, the lot. And due to the fact that the addition is entirely within the existing footprint. The visibility will be very minimal. Staff believes that the findings can be made, and this findings are expressed in detail on the draft resolution. We do have the applicant online, but that concludes my introduction, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions or Sarah? I have one and forgive me if it's procedurally off but did the ASRP look at this or they don't look at this because they don't ever see or they the context of an interior renovation. Can you give any sense of history? Yeah, ASRB did not review because it didn't trigger design review. So it's less square footage than what triggers design review. So they didn't have to go to ASRB for any review. Okay, great. It's one of them on the record. Thank you. given we have no comments unless there are further questions. I would now invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to speak if they wish. I have no comments unless there are further questions. Are there questions for the applicant from the commissioners? None for me. And for me either. Okay. Given that we have no questions for you, we would now open the public comment period on this particular agenda item. Is there anyone online? There's no one in the room. Is there anyone online that would like to speak about this particular item? What if, please electronically raise your hand via Zoom. There are no raised hands. Given no one on Zoom or the public wishing to comment on this, I will close the public comment period and open this for commissioner discussion and we'll start alphabetically with Commissioner Hathill. I don't really have a whole lot to say about this project. It seems pretty denying and well-reasoned in terms of meeting the standards for a variant so I really really don't have a lot of comments. Richard. So saying for me, staff has reviewed this and put a lot of time in the review, looked at all the different possible ways probably of not granting this project. So there is no risk of that. I feel that the roof changes and the heights are so minimal, you can't even see them unless you were knowing that there's some remodel going on from the street, from the road. Very minimal changes a little bit on the east side, which is also kind of sheltered by or camouflaged by some of the vegetation and it's more towards the northeast end. So from the road and also from neighbor's point of view, this project is like it never existed. And I'm very happy that you're able to make these changes for your family. So there's no objection for me. I could make the findings as well. So I will entertain a motion to approve the draft resolution has written. I'll second that. Chair Weaver. Yes. Commissioner Apthal. Yes. Commissioner Gonergo. Yes. And Commissioner Talber. Given that, you can, from our standpoint, you can move on with your project. So finishing that item, Sarah, did you have any updates or anything else for us tonight with respect upcoming meetings and what might be in the pipeline? Yes, your next meeting on April 16th, there will be a project or at 2300 Woodside Road, which is the Menlo Country Club. They will be proposing or are proposing a water reclamation facility. So that will be before you on that meeting and you should get the report sometime next week. Other than that, I don't have any other updates. Okay, thank you. And unless anyone else has something to say, I'm prepared to close the meeting. This meeting is adjourned.