Truckee Planning Commission continues review of Van Gorder residence, directs design changes

The Truckee Town Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote continued the application for the Van Gorder residence — a proposed 4,795-square-foot single-family home on Southeast River Street in the Downtown Truckee river character area — and asked the applicant to return with revised materials, reduced glazing, and new renderings that more closely follow the town's historic design guidelines.

Staff presentation and request for guidance

Chelsea, a planning staff member, told commissioners the project requests a historic design review, zoning clearance and a certificate of appropriateness for a new three-story (including a daylighting walkout basement) single-family residence. "The project before you this evening is the Van Gorder residence," Chelsea said, and noted the property lies in the historic overlay’s river character area. She said the applicant’s current design includes a graphite standing-seam metal roof, gray fiber-cement vertical siding, full-story-height stone veneer and red-cedar accents, and that staff could not make the findings to approve the project because of its size, modern roof forms and prominent glazing. Chelsea summarized prior review: an initial HPAC (Historic Preservation Advisory Commission) review in December 2024 resulted in a continuance and feedback to reduce scale and make materials more traditional; a March 2025 HPAC review resulted in a 3-0 recommendation for approval to the community development director; and the community development director then elevated the project to the Planning Commission for policy guidance.

Why the commission’s review matters

The commission's discussion centered on whether the proposed home is consistent with the Downtown Truckee plan’s historic design guidelines (chapters 13 and 17) and the river character area. Chelsea told the commission staff measured historic building sizes in the river character area and found an average historic structure size of 2,193 square feet (average historic residence: 1,888 sq ft). By contrast, the proposed Van Gorder house is 4,795 sq ft; staff noted an adjacent historic residence is 4,440 sq ft but is an outlier and its large addition predated the current advisory commission. Chelsea said staff recommended denial and offered specific edits the applicant could pursue to allow the community development director to make the approval findings (for example, lowering stone veneer height, switching to painted horizontal wood-style siding, reducing window area and eliminating the basement to reduce apparent stories). Staff also noted a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) determination referenced in the staff report (CEQA Guidelines section 15270) and provided timing information for an appeal if the commission had denied the project.

Applicant presentation and neighbors’ remarks

Jennifer Van Gorder, the property owner, told the commission she and her family want to build a home in Truckee and that the lot has been in her family; she said the team has revised plans in response to earlier feedback and cited chapter 13 of the historic design guidelines in support of a contemporary interpretation of historic styles: "A contemporary interpretation of historic styles often works best. New buildings should be distinguishable as recent additions, simple in form and detail, and visually compatible with older structures without being direct copies," she said.

Several neighbors spoke during public comment with concerns focused on proximity to property lines, loss of trees, snow storage and view impacts. Valerie Lafrano, who said she lives at 10110 Southeast River Street and is the immediate next-door neighbor, said she was worried about trees planted on the property line and how close the new house would be to those trees. "We will be the direct next door neighbor to the proposed home," she said, and said overhangs and close setbacks raise concerns about tree removal and fire safety. Joe McGinnity, who said he formerly owned the adjacent historic house, said there are a small number of historic homes on the block but many newer, larger homes, and asked the commission to consider that context: "On that Southeast River Street, there are 3 historical homes," he said, and added that other homes on the street are three stories and large.

Commission deliberation and requested design changes

Commission discussion lasted through multiple topics: materials, mass and scale, roof forms, window size/count, and other detailing. Commissioners and staff repeatedly referenced chapter 13 (building materials and general guidance), chapter 17 (river character area guidance) and chapter 6 (window guidance) of the historic design guidelines when explaining preferences.

Key directions and requests the commission put on the record for the applicant to address before the item returns included: - Siding and finish: prefer horizontal lap siding with a wood grain texture; if cementitious (e.g., fiber cement/Hardie) is used it should be textured to resemble natural wood. Commissioners said vertical modern siding was inconsistent with the river character area’s traditional appearance. - Roof: metal roofing may be acceptable but should be a matte, earth-tone finish (non-reflective) per the guidelines, not a highly reflective modern metal. - Stone and foundation treatment: commissioners found the proposed full-height modern stone veneer too contemporary. They asked the team to minimize stone veneer and consider historic-appropriate alternatives such as board-formed concrete for limited foundation/wainscot areas or to use horizontal siding down to a modest base; commissioners suggested limiting any exposed concrete/stone to the functional minimum needed for foundation/retaining conditions (discussion referenced keeping such material low on the front façade and allowing more on the rear/basement where retaining walls are structural). - Windows and glazing: the commission said the amount and scale of glazing drives the house’s modern appearance. Commissioners asked for revised window proportions that reference the historic guidance (staff noted chapter 6’s guidance that a window opening’s height should be about twice its width as an indirect measure), to break up large continuous glass walls and to make fenestration more consistent across similar façades. - Doors and sliding systems: commissioners expressed mixed views about large sliding/folding glass doors on the river-facing façade; several commissioners recommended reducing the apparent glass wall by using more traditionally proportioned doors or making the glazing treatment consistent across the back façade. - Entrances, porch and deck rails: commissioners encouraged a recognizable front porch element consistent with the river character guidelines. They also asked for less contemporary deck rail detailing (add vertical elements or other treatments to reduce a stark contemporary appearance) while recognizing snow and views are practical concerns for the owner. - Lighting and fixtures: commission members requested fixtures that read as less contemporary and more consistent with listed historic styles, while remaining dark-sky compliant. - Color palette and materials samples: use historic-palette color samples (the commission referenced the town’s historic color guidance) or demonstrate how a chosen prefinished cementitious color corresponds to an "H" (historic) palette sample; commissioners asked the applicant to provide real-material samples and a palette justification. - Renderings and documentation: commissioners asked for revised elevations and renderings showing the requested changes and for the applicant to identify specific historic examples (from the town’s documented historic properties) the proposal is referencing or matching in intent.

Vote and next steps

After deliberation the commission voted to continue the public hearing to a date and time uncertain so the applicant could return with revisions and new renderings. The motion to continue was seconded and passed with the following recorded votes: Vice Chair Taylor — yes; Commissioner Claren — yes; Commissioner Toups — yes; Commissioner Kauffman — yes. Chair Kavanaugh had recused from the item because of a stated conflict (ownership of a lot across the street) and handed the meeting to Sammy for this item. The applicant confirmed she and her design team are willing to make changes and requested clearer direction so they can avoid repeated revisions.

Clarifying details and background cited at the hearing

- Project size: proposed residence 4,795 sq ft (staff-cited comparison: average historic structure in the river character area 2,193 sq ft; average historic residence 1,888 sq ft). The adjacent large historic residence is 4,440 sq ft and was noted as an outlier. - Lot area: 12,344 sq ft (staff and commissioners discussed floor area ratio; staff calculated FAR at approximately 0.39 for the current design). - Procedural history: initial submittal June 2024; HPAC review December 2024 (continuance 4-0), resubmittal and HPAC recommendation 3-0 in March 2025; community development director elevated the project to Planning Commission for policy guidance. Staff recommended denial in the current iteration and suggested edits to allow administrative approval. - Entitlements requested: historic design review, zoning clearance, certificate of appropriateness. - Local policy references cited in the staff report and during discussion: Downtown Truckee plan, Historic design guidelines chapters 6, 13 and 17, and a CEQA exemption reference in staff materials (CEQA Guidelines section 15270 was cited in the staff report as background for denial/appeal process).

What happens next

The commission continued the item to a date and time uncertain and asked staff and the applicant to return with revised plans, material samples, a color justification tied to the town’s historic palette and updated renderings showing the changes discussed. The applicant indicated willingness to revise but asked for clear, specific direction so she and her architect can avoid repeated rounds of costly changes. The commission said staff will prepare a succinct list of the requested revisions and the relevant guideline citations before the item returns.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes (Planning Commission minutes, 05/20/2025): motion passed (recorded votes during that item were affirmative by Chair Kavanaugh; Vice Chair Taylor; Commissioner Claren; Commissioner Toups; Commissioner Kauffman). Mover/second not specified in the transcript. - Item 7.1, Application 2024-88 (Van Gorder residence — historic design review, zoning clearance, certificate of appropriateness): motion to continue to date/time uncertain with the directed design revisions; vote recorded as yes — Vice Chair Taylor; Commissioner Claren; Commissioner Toups; Commissioner Kauffman. Outcome: continued.

Quotes (selected)

"The project before you this evening is the Van Gorder residence. The project requests a historic design review, zoning clearance, and certificate of appropriateness for a new 4,795 square foot single family residence within the historic downtown area," Chelsea, planning staff member, said during the presentation.

"I'm here because my family and I want to build a home in Truckee. It's a place we love, and we are excited to be a part of it," Jennifer Van Gorder said in describing her family’s reasons for the project.

"We will be the direct next door neighbor to the proposed home," said Valerie Lafrano, a Southeast River Street resident who said she is the immediate adjacent neighbor and expressed concerns about setbacks and trees.

"On that Southeast River Street, there are 3 historical homes," said Joe McGinnity, who said he formerly owned the adjacent historic property and asked the commission to consider the broader street context.

Ending

The commission’s direction aims to narrow the design alternatives and focus revisions on specific materials and fenestration so staff or the commission can evaluate a new application iteration. The hearing was continued to a date and time uncertain; staff offered to work with the applicant on a revised submittal checklist and to return the matter once the applicant submits revised drawings and material samples.