►
From YouTube: San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2016
Description
San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 2016
trt: 57:45
A
D
A
C
A
A
C
Good
evening
commissioners
Michael
Smith
planning
department
staff
subject:
property
is
located
on
greene
avenue
between
san
bruno
and
euclid
avenues
in
the
sanford
san
bruno
park
subdivision.
The
property
is
currently
developed
with
a
split-level
single-family
dwelling
that
was
constructed
in
1924
and
contains
two
bedrooms
and
one
bath
and
a
single
car
garage
with
in
911
square
feet
of
total
gross
floor
area
immediately
adjacent
to
the
subject.
Property
are
single-family
dwellings.
C
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
737
square
foot
two-story
addition
at
the
rear
of
the
existing
single-family
dwelling,
which
will
increase
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
existing
home
by
greater
than
fifty
percent
eighty-one
percent.
To
be
exact.
The
new
addition
would
measure
28
feet
in
depth
and
house
a
new
family
room
and
full
bath
at
the
ground
floor
in
a
new
master
bedroom
and
full
bath
at
the
upper
floor.
The
addition
would
have
a
gabled
roof
and
exterior
materials
that
match
the
existing.
C
The
project
requires
use
permit
because
it's
a
50-percent
expansion,
as
I've
stated,
the
architectural
review
committee
reviewed
this
project
at
its
march
meeting
and
forwarded
the
project
to
the
Planning
Commission,
with
no
additional
recommendations.
The
department
meld
hearing,
notices
to
neighbors
within
300
feet
of
the
subject,
property
and
no
comments
were
received.
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
this
use.
C
Permit
requests
based
on
findings
1
through
6
and
subject
to
conditions
of
approval,
one
through
26
staff
minds
that
the
design
of
the
addition
complies
with
the
residential
design
guidelines,
because
it
would
be
well
integrated
with
the
existing
single-family
dwelling
using
materials
that
match
the
existing
and,
furthermore,
the
addition
would
not
be
readily
visible
from
the
street.
This
concludes
my
presentation
I'm
available
for
any
questions
or
comments.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Michael
to.
G
C
Know
that
that
specific
number
is
not
in
the
table,
so
how
the
table
is
structured.
It
provides
the
existing
lot
coverage
and
gross
floor
area,
and
then
it
provides
their
proposed
and
the
only
way
to
really
let
me
see
yeah
so
that
that
number
isn't
exactly
stated
in
anywhere
in
that
table.
It's
only
in
the
project
description,
which
is
on
the
first
page.
B
G
C
E
H
C
C
There,
because
we're
in
the
flight
path
of
the
planes
I
you
are,
we
are
required
to
notify
the
airport
editions
basically,
and
so
we
have
a
standard
form
that
we
have
them
fill
out
for
an
exemption.
If
that's
the
way
they
want
to
go.
Otherwise
we
have
two
more
formally
notice
them
of
the
addition
is.
H
This
this
for
real
I
mean
it.
It
just
seems
a
little
bit
of
overkill
to
me
that
an
addition
to
a
homeless
here
Bruno
would
require
FAA
notification
and
approval.
Maybe
it's
just
a
rubber
stamp,
but
it
just
seems
kind
of
ridiculous.
To
me,
I
mean
we're
not
talking
about
five
six,
seven,
eight
story
building
here
we're
talking
about
a
you
know,
maybe
a
second
story
addition.
It
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
that
we
would
have
to
do
that
again.
B
You
won't
see
this
condition.
If
that
doesn't
happen,
then
we
put
the
condition
in
so
this
is
a
relatively
new
requirement.
It
is
real
and
it's
something
that
we've
been
told,
that
we
need
to
comply
with
and
assure
that
applicants
comply
with,
but
there
is
an
exemption
process
in
additions
and
most
projects
like
this
fall
within
that
exemption.
But.
H
B
A
E
A
E
G
B
Through
the
chair,
if
I
could,
on
this
I
I
agree
with
the
commissioners
comments
in
terms
of
wanting
to
assure
that
a
final
landscape
plan
is
reviewed
and
approved.
I
would
agree
as
well
that,
in
terms
of
impermeable
surfaces,
we
would
certainly
look
at
making
sure
that
there
are
permeable
surfaces
within
the
area
and
there
are
specific
code
requirements
in
terms
of
percentages,
so
the
the
Community
Development
Director
of
myself,
and
that
in
that
position
we
will
assure
that
this
plan.
B
G
B
Would
say
that
we
should
modify
the
language
here.
I
agree
in
terms
of
this
plan,
not
satisfying
code
requirements.
So
the
idea
is
that
the
applicant
shall
submit
a
final
landscape
plan.
It
shall
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
community
development
director
in
accordance
with
applicable
city
codes,
and
with
that
that
would
ensure
that
the
permeable
surfaces
that
you're
looking
for
per
code
requirements
would
be
part
of
a
finally
approved
plan.
So
I
would
offer
that
language.
Okay,.
A
Acceptable,
okay
in
second
yeah,
okay,
so
we
have
a
motion
in
second
all
those
in
favor
aye.
The
motion
is
approved
and
there's
a
tenday
appeal
period.
Good
luck!
All
right!
The
next
item
is
item
v110,
elm
avenue.
This
is
request
form
use
permit
to
allow
a
two-story
addition
on
the
south
side
of
a
single-family
dwelling
that
will
add
738
square
feet.
Staff
report.
Please.
C
Again,
good
evening,
commissioners,
michael
smith,
planning
department
staff,
the
subject
property
is
located
on
elm
avenue
between
santa
lucia
and
San
Felipe
avenues
from
the
san
bruno
park
subdivision
the
subject,
lot
measures
5,000
square
feet
in
area
and
is
currently
developed
with
a
single-family
dwelling,
that's
one
story
and
was
constructed
in
1931.
It
contains
two
bedrooms
and
one
bath
at
a
single
car
garage
within
a
thousand
ten
square
feet
immediately
adjacent
to
the
subject.
Property
are
single-family
dwellings.
C
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
1738
square-foot
two-story
addition
at
the
south
side
of
the
existing
dwelling,
which
will
increase
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
existing
home
by
greater
than
fifty
percent
172
percent.
To
be
exact,
thus
requiring
a
use
permit
the
ground
floor
of
the
addition,
wood
has
a
two-car
garage
and
a
family
room
the
second
floor.
The
addition
would
have
the
two
bedrooms
and
two
bathrooms
in
the
excuse
me.
C
The
proposed
gross
floor
area
of
the
addition
will
be
be
20
of
the
resulting
building
would
be
20
748
square
feet,
which
corresponds
to
a
point
5
49,
f,
AR.
The
addition
would
in
philly
a
typical
vacant
portion
of
the
lot
that
is
located
behind
a
fence
on
the
south
side
of
the
property.
The
existing
building
would
tie
into
the
addition
with
new
stucco
cladding
new
windows
trim
and
new
roofing
material,
to
give
it
a
seamless
and
consistent
architectural
vocabulary.
C
The
department
mailed
hearing
notices
to
neighbors
within
300
feet
of
the
subject
property
and
in
response
to
that
mailing,
a
member
of
the
public,
did
come
to
the
counter
last
week
to
express
her
concern
about
the
project,
but
did
not
wait
to
speak
to
planning
staff
and
did
not
leave
her
name
or
contact.
Information
staff
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
use
permit
request
based
on
findings
one
through
six
and
subject
to
conditions
of
approval
1
through
28.
Although
the
addition
is
sizable
relative
to
the
existing
building,
it
is
great.
A
E
G
G
F
G
G
A
E
F
Would
expect
you'll
change
the
architecture
of
the
space
if
they're,
right
on
the
property
line
and
right
now
or
if
they're
going
to
be
forced
to
come
five
feet
in
because
they're
completely
demoing
out
that
wall?
Yes,
so
they
can
rebuild
in
place
and
they
will
not
be
forced
back
into
a
design
review
or
a
Planning
Commission
review
right.
They
can
rebuild.
B
H
H
E
Comment:
I
hunt
through
the
chair
of
the
report.
It
says
that
application
that
were
use
permit
1600
well,
but
then
further
down
on
the
recommendations,
its
use
permit
1600
three.
So
one
of
those
excuse
me
one
of
those
incorrect
or
is
that
just
how
supposed
to
read
it's
on
the
front
cover
sheet
of
our
staff
report?
A
A
A
motion
in
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
all
right,
any
opposed.
Okay.
The
motion
is
approved,
but
there's
a
10-day
appeal
period.
Good
luck
with
your
project;
okay
item
C,
139
Florida
request
for
a
permit
to
allow
1010,
squared
first,
first
and
second-floor
addition
and
with
a
detached
426
square
foot,
garage
staff.
D
Report,
please
you
good
evening
planning
commissioners
I'm
Paula
Bradley
the
project
planner,
and
this
is
a
addition
at
139
Florida
Avenue,
the
applicants
proposing
to
construct
a
new
1010
square-foot,
two-story
addition
and
a
detached
420
square
foot
garage
which
would
increase
the
gross
floor
area
from
1070
square
feet
to
2296
square
feet,
including
the
garage
and
the
floor
area
ratio
would
be
0
point
53
where
point
five.
Five
is
the
maximum
permitted.
There's
also
proposed
a
tandem
garage
which
requires
a
parking
exception.
D
There's
an
existing
ones,
one
car
garage
on
site
that
will
be
demolished
and
replaced
with
a
two-car
tandem
garage
with
the
approval
and
construction
of
the
project.
It
will
resolve
a
code
enforcement
case
for
illegal
construction
regarding
construction
in
the
home,
including
a
210
square
foot,
room
and
bathroom
on
the
ground
floor
and
then
also
our
rear,
deck
and
stairs.
If,
if
approved,
the
2-bedroom
2-bath
home
would
become
a
three
bedroom,
two
a
half
bath
home
and
the
project
was
reviewed
at
the
architecture.
D
Review
committee
and
some
few
questions
were
asked
about
the
project
about
the
floor
plan
and
internal
circulation,
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
kind
of
an
unusual
shaped
a
lot.
It's
somewhat
pie
shaped
the
existing
home
on
the
site
is
part
of
the
home
on.
The
second
has
a
second
floor.
Existing
and
part
of
that.
D
The
ground
floor
has
the
required
ceiling
height
of
7
and
a
half
feet,
but
most
of
the
ground
floor
is
is
unfinished.
It's
considered
crawl
space
in
the
only
area
they
could
have
habitable
space.
Was
the
area
called
the
office
in
that
front
bathroom,
so
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
add
a
family
room
to
the
ground
floor
that
the
new
portion
of
the
house
would
on
the
left
side
would
meet
this
ceiling
height
with
the
new
addition
and
then
the
existing
home
would
would
actually
be
somewhat
split-level.
D
So
it's
a
little
little
unusual
in
the
shape
of
a
lot,
its
subset,
substandard
in
size
as
well.
So
since
the
aarc
meeting
the
architecture
review
committee
meeting,
we
had
some
discussion
and
questions
about
the
landscape
plan.
The
applicant
had
proposed
some
ground
covered.
That's
decomposed
granite,
which
is
kind
of
a
finer
rock
ground
cover
in
addition
to
plants.
So
some
suggestions
were
made.
D
The
applicant
came
back
with
a
revised
plan,
which
includes
more
green
area
and
they'd
still
like
to
have
the
decomposed
granite
rock,
as
that
is
the
ground
cover
which
is
not
uncommon
for
low
water
use
types
of
gardens
to
have
other
materials
as
ground
cover
than
plants,
but
they
did
increase
the
area
of
planting
by
adding
planters
along
the
front
and
then
increase
the
size
of
the
planters.
So
so
they
did
submit
a
new
landscape
plan.
D
Staff
has
also
included
a
condition
requiring
more
plants
and
specific
details
about
the
planting
and
irrigation
system
that
that
would
be
required
to
be
submitted
as
a
final
landscape
plan
prior
to
they
have
to
be
submitted
prior
to
issuance
of
a
building
permit,
and
the
landscape
plan
would
have
to
be
approved
in
an
installed
prior
to
occupancy.
So
the
plan,
that's
shown
in
your
plans,
actually
isn't
the
final
plan,
given
that
staff
has
has
requested
additional
information
as
a
condition
of
approval.
D
There
was.
There
hasn't
been
any
comments
since
the
architecture
review
committee
meeting.
There
was
one
neighbor
who
came
to
that
meeting
in
it
and
asked
some
questions,
but
I
think
the
questions
were
answered
satisfactorily.
We
haven't
had
any
further
comment,
since
the
public
notices
were
mailed
out
for
the
Planning
Commission
hearing.
D
Pertaining
to
the
parking
exception,
that
mentioned
it's
a
tandem
parking
space.
The
new
garage
will
meet
the
20-foot
set
back
from
the
front
property
line,
so
that
will
be
an
improvement
and
then
the
it's
kind
of
an
unusual
shape
due
to
the
shape
of
the
lot.
So
given
the
size
of
the
lot,
the
pie
shape
of
the
lot,
the
the
only
real
option
and
that
this
is
an
addition,
not
a
new
house,
though
it
seemed
like
the
only
way
to
have
two
parking
spaces
was
tandem
and
so
step.
Step
up
that
was
justifiable.
D
Staff
is
also
asking
requiring
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
in
the
ground
floor
area
that
the
utilities
be
removed
from
the
source,
the
front
bathroom
that
the
existing
full
bathroom
in
the
ground
ground
floor
area
is
required
to
be
removed.
And
then
they
proposed
a
half
bathroom
off
of
the
family
room.
So
staff
was
required
at
that
full
path
not
be
allowed
because
there's
no
internal
circulation
with
the
rest
of
the
home,
including
the
second
floor.
D
And
the
second
floor,
existing
deck
will
be
removed
in
the
proposed
new
deck
does
not
create
a
privacy
issue,
given
that
it's
closed
and
closed
on
on
the
side
and
and
it's
actually
covered
and
it's
not
close
to
any
adjacent
home
windows,
and
so
that
it
will
be
different.
And
that
concludes
my
staff
report.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
Actually,
two
staff
went
and
visited
the
home
and
we
did
walk
through
the
crawl
area
and
to
ensure
that
what
was
shown
on
the
plans
was
actually
accurately
depicted
on
the
plans.
So
we
did
go,
look
and
confirm
what
was
there
and
that
you
saw
what
the
actual
floor
plan
was
on
that
ground
floor
and
is.
D
There
was
on
the
record,
with
the
code
enforcement
case
that
the
sum
of
that
crawl
space
area
was
being
used
for
habitable
space
and
a
legal
utilities
in
construction.
There
was
plumbing
hooked
up
and
and
so
on
in
the
crawl
space,
and
that's
required.
All
of
that's
required
to
be
removed
to
the
source
is.
G
The
reason
I'm
asking
is,
because
is
a
commission
approved
a
number
of
garage
modifications
in
which
there
was
a
over
the
past
three
or
four
years.
There
was
a
substantial
amount
of
storage
space
above
the
garage
that
was
designated
not
to
be
habitable
space,
but
they
functionally
used.
It
is
habitable
space,
so
I'm
wondering
how
likely
is
it
that
this
crawlspace
would
return
to
some
kind
of
a
semi
habitable
usage?
D
B
The
chair,
if
I,
could
add
I
think
what
we
could
do
here
is
perhaps
add
a
condition.
This
is
something
that
we
often
do
through
the
building
permit
process,
where
the
construction
documents
actually
indicate
that
a
particular
area
in
in
a
case
like
this
is
not
habitable,
and
it
specifically
indicated
on
the
plans
that
are
on
file
with
the
city.
B
It's
like
this,
that
this
area
is
indicated
to
be
not
habitable
on
the
plants
actually
stamped
on
the
plans
that
are
on
file
with
the
city
and
that's
probably,
as
far
as
we
can
go
and
and
if
there's
a
complaint,
we
would
respond
and
check
out
the
circumstance
and,
if
they're,
using
the
space
as
habitable
space,
it
would
be
a
code
violation.
We
have
to
follow
up,
follow
up
as
a
code
violation
but
I
think
with
the
inspection
with
the
indication
on
the
plans
at
this
time.
C
G
Just
just
I
appreciate
your
listening
to
the
song
question
just
to
be
clear
on
this.
My
experience
is
in
san
bruno
is
that
it's
very
common
to
use
a
crawl
space
for
dead
storage
of
cardboard
boxes,
full
of
papers
and
whatnot,
but
that
people
don't
routinely
use
the
area
for
reading
watching
TV
having
a
recreation
facility.
Whatever
is
that
understanding
correct?
We.
H
Food
chair
Paula,
you
have
spoken
with
the
applicant
because
you
know
I
was
on
the
architects
review
committee
and
the
applicant
failed.
The
show
for
that
meeting
and
tonight
it
looks
as
though
the
applicant
is
failed
to
show
for
this
meeting
it's
hard
to
kind
of
get
a
sense
of.
What's
going
on
when
we
can't
talk
to
the
applicant-
and
I
know
you
have
do
you
know
why
the
applicant
isn't
here-
I.
D
Don't
know
why
they're
not
here
and
the
applicant
I
did
communicate
to
the
applicant
several
times
about
the
location
in
time
of
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
importance
of
being
here
so
I'm
rather
surprised
there.
That
I've
only
spoken
with
the
applicants,
the
owner's
representative
so
and
that's,
but
when
I
did
go
out
to
the
site,
the
owners
were
there
and
there's
a
language
sure.
F
A
couple
things
well:
did
the
fire
department
look
at
this
plan
to
give
comments
regarding
an
existing
office
exiting
through
a
garage-
and
this
just
seems
like
a
huge
no-no,
in
my
opinion,
to
a
second
point
when
I
look
at
what
how
much
demo
is
being
done
in
the
space
it
baffles
me
that
there
are
so
many
stairs
in
this
house
and
there's
so
many
convoluted
spaces.
The
dough
flow
in
this
in
this
building
is
appalling.
Actually
it's
the
first
time,
I'm,
probably
thinking
about
abstaining
from
a
vote
for
holding
note.
F
My
third
point
is
that
there
are
things
on
this
plan
that
don't
make
sense
to
me,
for
example,
on
a
three
proposed
for
us
first
floor,
a
plan
there
is
a
space
and
the
I
don't
know
if
it's
in
north
end
or
basically
right
above
the
stairs,
there's
a
new
enclosed
space
under
deck.
It's
an
enclosed
space
with
a
with
a
window
in
it
with
no
entrance
or
exit
out
of
that
space.
I,
don't
really
understand.
F
No
door
with
no
access,
great
fantastic
window,
but
just
to
look
and
the
flow
of
the
space
hi
I'm
having
hard
time
getting
giving
this
in
approval
majority.
This
building
is
being
ripped
apart
to
build
this
rooms
on
the
second
floor
and
we're
putting
in
three
sets
of
stairs
to
get
to
different
portions
of
the
house
that
are
not
connected
to
each
other.
At
some
point,
it's
a
gut
remodel
and
it
makes
sense
to
redo
the
space
in
a
way
that
is
that
works
better.
F
D
E
E
E
G
A
G
This
is
this
is
an
unusual
application
for
a
number
of
reasons.
One
is
because
it's
this
kind
of
pie
shaped
lot,
so
I
went
out
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
I
also
looked
at
Google
more
extensively
and
found
out
that
there
are
not
a
lot
of
other
places,
even
though
it's
in
heart
area,
where
there
are
pie,
shaped
lots.
There
are
not
a
number
of
other
places
where
two
buildings
virtually
merge
into
each
other,
and
what
it
suggested
to
me
was
that,
for
whatever
reason
during
the
building
process,
there
was
a.
G
There
was
a
lack
of
planning,
a
lack
of
review,
of
a
lack
of
design,
and
it
all
came
to
essentially,
it
looks
like
it
was
to
address
a
desire
of
the
of
the
applicants
or
owners
on
each
property
to
max
out
as
much
space
as
they
could
and
where
their
rectilinear
thinking,
in
other
words,
square
cornered
houses,
approached
each
other.
They
just
made
a
jog
over
and
what
it
what
it
resulted
in
is
two
buildings
essentially
merging
with
each
other.
At
the
property
line,
I
took
these
pictures
below
the
view
between
the
buildings.
G
You
can
only
very
slightly
see
through
any
any
place
between
those
buildings
and
at
one
place
there
was
only
an
eight
inch
separation
between
building
and
and
back
further
it
looked
like
they
actually
merged
into
each
other.
I
went
around
the
back
of
the
structure.
Are
you
it
was
in
accountable
through
through
trash
and
various
structures.
It
was
not
possible
to
approach
where
the
two
structures
met
each
other
it
you
at
you
actually
have
to
squeeze
through
to
even
get
to
this
place.
Where
there's
eight
inches
of
separation.
G
G
We
asked
to
hold
their
structure
of
putting
half
away
from
the
property
of
the
line,
so
there'd
be
a
3-foot
gap.
But
right
now
it's
a
it's
a
it's!
A
man
trap.
It's
an
animal
trap.
It's
a
fire
trap,
it's
ridiculous
and
I
would
I
would
advocate
that
staff
take
the
position
that
they
should
ask
them
what
they
can,
what
what
they
can
do
about
that
would
they
be
interested
in
talking
to
the
adjacent
structure
about
what
their
mutual
concerns
might
be,
particularly
where
they
meet
so
closely
together.
G
G
It's
very
likely
that
they
weren't
any
care
more
careful
in
building
it
than
they
were
in
designing
it.
So
my
one
day,
this
comes
for
emotion.
What
I
would
propose
to
move
is
that
the
as
part
of
the
any
any
of
this
current
plan
implementation,
that
the
existing
structure
be
modified
to
be
at
least
1.5
feet
away
from
the
property
line.
B
Through
the
chair,
if
I
could
comment
on
that,
please
I
I've
heard
we've
heard
a
number
of
comments
regarding
the
design
of
the
structure.
The
existing
design
and
proposed
design
of
the
structure
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
very
good
idea
for
you
to
send
this
back
continue.
The
item
and
I
would
propose
to
to
bring
it
back
to
our
building
division
staff,
our
chief
building
official
and
our
Fire
Marshal
as
well,
and
sit
down
with
staff
and
and
look
at
various
options
to
to
not
just
address
the
code
violations.
B
That
kind
of
brought
this
to
us
to
begin
with,
but
to
kind
of
look
at
some
of
these
other
issues
and
to
determine
what
might
be
possible
given,
what's
what's
proposed
here
in
terms
of
one
correcting
code
violations
to
adding
on
to
the
structure,
I
would
suggest,
perhaps
not
being
so
precise
in
terms
of
1.5
feet
off
the
property
line.
I
would
like
to
I
understand
the
concerns.
B
I
think
you
have
very
valid,
very
good
concerns,
and
this
project
does
need
more
work,
but
let
us
go
back
work
with
the
applicant,
the
design,
professional
and
the
property
owner
and
sort
this
out
with
our
staff
and
we'll
bring
it
back
to
perhaps
the
Architectural
Review
Committee,
initially
I
kind
of
share
back
to
you
kind
of
what
we've
come
up
with
her
code
requirements,
etc
and
in
your
committee,
can
kind
of
decide
where
to
send
it
at
that
point.
That
would
be
my
recommendation.
G
B
Survey
would
be
helpful,
no
question.
The
survey
would
be
helpful.
We've
got
an
existing
structure
here,
so
we've
got
two
existing
structures,
in
fact
that
have
been
here
a
long
time.
So
in
terms
of
modifications
to
the
structure
or
structures
we
would
want
to
look
at.
Are
they?
How
are
they
affecting
an
existing
property
boundaries?
So
we'll
assess
that
as
well.
We'll
look
at
boundaries
proposed
adjustments
to
the
structure
and
try
to
address
a
number
of
the
concerns.
I
heard
flow
concerns.
B
Proximity
concerns
a
variety
of
concerns,
yeah,
so
I
think
it's
it's
a
situation
where
we
probably
need
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
with
this
from
a
variety
of
staff,
perspectives
and
work
with
the
architect
and
property
too
kind
of
sort
this
out
and
bring
it
back.
It
could
be
helpful,
like
I,
said,
to
bring
it
back
to
the
architecture,
review
committee
and
share
back
with
the
committee
kind
of
what
we
found,
what
our
suggestions
might
be
at
that
point
and
the
committee
could
decide
how
to
move
forward
with
it.
G
I
I
think
there
should
be
a
survey
because
I'm
suspicious
as
to
whether
some
of
those
structures
are
actually
over
the
property
line,
I
agree
and
I,
don't
even
think
they're
vertical
some
of
them
and
I'm
when
buildings
age,
it's
possible
that
they
get
out
of
vertical
I'm,
not
saying
they
constructed
them
totally
out
of
vertical,
but
they
may
not
have
you
know
it's
very
common
that
engineers
make
surveying
mistakes
in
the
field,
and
that
could
be
part
of
the
reason
these
are
so
close
to
drink.
So
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to.
F
A
F
G
D
G
G
A
B
Commissioners,
at
this
point
of
the
meeting,
we're
looking
for
volunteers
for
your
next
architecture
review
committee
meeting
and
that
meeting
is
May
twelfth,
so
I
would
appreciate
three
volunteers,
I
mean
sure,
bsod,
Commissioner,
sub
mode
and
one
more
please
and
missionary
our
bicep
sure
Kyle.
Thank
you
very
much.
F
A
Good,
okay
and
I'd
like
to
add
that,
in
regard
to
that
last
cup
of
plain
that
we
saw
item
C,
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
the
applicants
come
to
the
architectural
review
meeting
and
the
planning
commission
meeting
strongly
suggest.
Thank
you,
okay!
Is
there
any
other
comment
all
right
with
that?
We
are
adjourned
until
April,
nineteenth.