[0:05] All right. Going to call to order the

[0:07] meeting, first meeting of the year, the

[0:08] ASRB on uh January the 12th at 4:30 p.m.

[0:14] Have a roll call, please.

[0:15] >> Chair Lindseay,

[0:16] >> present.

[0:17] >> Vice Chair Comra,

[0:18] >> present.

[0:20] >> Member Delgavio,

[0:21] >> member Middleman,

[0:22] >> present.

[0:23] >> And member Sullivan,

[0:24] >> present.

[0:26] >> Excellent. Um, do we have any changes to

[0:28] the agenda today? There are no changes

[0:30] to the agenda and no desk items.

[0:33] >> Okay. Thank you. Um at this time, we ask

[0:36] anyone of the public who wishes to make

[0:38] a comment on any topic not on tonight's

[0:41] agenda, either in the room or online. I

[0:44] see no one in the room.

[0:45] >> We have no attendees online at the

[0:47] moment.

[0:47] >> Okay. Okay. We're going fast. Um consent

[0:52] agenda. I believe we have one item. Uh

[0:54] December 15th minutes.

[0:57] >> Okay.

[0:59] Um, does any member of the board have a

[1:02] comment or pull that for comment?

[1:05] Otherwise, we'll just approve the

[1:07] consent agenda

[1:09] as is. All right. Can I have a motion to

[1:12] approve the consent? Oh,

[1:13] >> second.

[1:14] >> I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion

[1:16] to approve the December 15th minutes.

[1:19] >> Make a motion to second that.

[1:21] >> Chair Lindseay.

[1:22] >> Yes.

[1:22] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[1:23] >> Yes.

[1:24] >> Member Delgavio.

[1:25] >> Yes.

[1:25] >> Member Middleman.

[1:26] >> Yes. Member Sullivan.

[1:28] >> Yes.

[1:30] >> Wow. We are moving fast.

[1:32] >> Love it.

[1:32] >> Okay. Um on to the public hearing. We

[1:35] have one item tonight. 45 Mission Trail.

[1:38] Um

[1:40] >> Sarah will give the presentation.

[1:41] >> Sarah's presenting remotely.

[1:44] >> Hi everyone. Um first off, I just want

[1:46] to apologize. I'm not there with you

[1:48] all. I'm a little under the weather. Um

[1:51] so thanks for being flexible with me.

[1:55] Um, can you guys all see my screen?

[2:00] » Yes.

[2:00] >> Okay. Okay, great. So, thank you. Um, I

[2:04] will be introducing the project at 45

[2:07] Mission Trail.

[2:09] The project includes the demolition of

[2:12] an existing single family main residence

[2:15] as well as the guest house and pool and

[2:18] the construction of a new single family

[2:21] main residence, detached garage and

[2:24] swimming pool. The property is um 1 acre

[2:29] in size and it's in the SR zoning

[2:33] district.

[2:35] Um, it's located on the north side of

[2:37] Mission Trail, which is a private road

[2:40] that extends off of Kenyatta Road.

[2:45] The property slopes uh gently from um

[2:50] like west to east with an average

[2:52] elevation change of about 12 ft. It's a

[2:55] pretty um gradual slope.

[2:58] Um, it is currently developed with a

[3:00] single family main residence as well as

[3:03] a guest house and a pool. Um, all of

[3:05] which are proposed to be demolished.

[3:09] And there is also an existing detached

[3:12] garage um that's

[3:15] um currently under review um building

[3:18] permit review and it's proposed to be

[3:21] demolished and a new ADU um is proposed

[3:25] in that same location. So that's this

[3:27] structure here.

[3:30] Um so the that particular scope of work,

[3:34] the ADU is not not necessarily part of

[3:38] this discussion. It it's already under

[3:40] review for building permits. Um the new

[3:43] main residence is uh proposed here in

[3:47] the approximate center of the property.

[3:50] And this is a detached garage uh located

[3:54] here. And then in kind of right here in

[3:57] this center area is the proposed

[3:59] swimming pool.

[4:02] The existing driveway location onto the

[4:05] property will remain. Um it will be

[4:08] repaved and modified to extend um onto

[4:12] the property to this detached garage.

[4:16] And so it will include additional

[4:18] parking areas and um this firetruck

[4:21] turnaround.

[4:26] Uh the height of the residence will be

[4:29] approximately 17 1/2 ft tall at its

[4:31] highest point. It is a singlestory

[4:33] residence

[4:35] and the materials include um standing

[4:40] seam metal roofs uh vertical and

[4:43] horizontal cement board siding as well

[4:46] as wood sighting and then um aluminum

[4:50] and clad oh sorry aluminum clad windows

[4:52] and doors.

[4:54] And as you can see, the color tone the

[4:57] color palette will be muted earth tones

[4:59] and shades of um like gray, beige,

[5:03] brown.

[5:05] Um I did receive um two neighbors

[5:08] reached out um wanting to view the plans

[5:11] and both of which were able to view the

[5:14] plans. one of the neighbors was able to

[5:17] um view them and indicated to the

[5:21] applicant and as well as myself that

[5:23] they were in support of the project.

[5:25] And another neighbor um came in and

[5:28] looked at the plans and was curious

[5:30] about um landscape screening.

[5:34] Um the applicant has installed story

[5:37] pools in advance of the hearing. Um that

[5:41] concludes my presentation and I'm happy

[5:43] to answer any questions. Right.

[5:46] Thank you, Sarah. Um, does anyone on the

[5:48] board have questions of staff?

[5:50] >> Sarah.

[5:51] I have a question because of the

[5:54] >> Oh, I have a

[6:03] Okay. um as because the driveway is

[6:06] extended all the way and back to the

[6:08] garage and you have the pool area. Is

[6:11] that in compliance with the paved uh

[6:14] allowables?

[6:17] >> Um yes, thank you. I didn't hear

[6:19] everything that I I heard your question,

[6:21] but maybe there was something said

[6:23] before that, but um yes, their

[6:25] preliminary calculations show that

[6:28] they're comp they would be in compliance

[6:29] with their maximum paved area, but it's

[6:32] not something that we've completely

[6:34] verified yet just because we don't ask

[6:36] for all of those um details. But

[6:38] preliminary calculations look like they

[6:40] would um be in compliance and the code

[6:44] would allow some um exclusion of that

[6:46] driveway. Um, so but it's something we

[6:50] would definitely check with a formal

[6:52] designer view.

[6:57] » Yeah. And just I know that the ADU is

[7:00] separate. Um, but what's the square

[7:02] footage of the week?

[7:04] >> Well, I think it's about 1,200 square

[7:07] feet.

[7:09] Maybe I don't have the planet that plan

[7:10] in front of me though. I was it just

[7:12] looked larger than than

[7:15] >> 1250 for 1250. Okay, that's that's my

[7:19] >> for you.

[7:21] >> Okay. Any other question?

[7:23] >> Yes,

[7:23] >> I have one. I think I read conflicting information

[7:28] that it was a 4700ish square foot home

[7:31] and that 4,000 was approved, but there's

[7:35] some or uh in keeping with the code, but

[7:38] then I thought I read someplace else

[7:39] that we needed a And uh what am I

[7:42] saying? An adjustment for that.

[7:44] >> Um yeah, Sarah can better explain it,

[7:46] but yeah, there's I'm assuming there's

[7:47] the uh resident size exception. And

[7:50] again, this is just a formula based

[7:52] thing. So it depends on their lot size

[7:54] and it just allows people to use more of

[7:56] their allowable TFA. So I I believe

[7:59] that's the case. Is that correct, Sarah?

[8:01] >> It was 47ishund00 Sarah. That's

[8:04] >> I believe so. Um I can look really

[8:07] quickly.

[8:07] >> I am. It's 4 4736

[8:10] ft.

[8:11] >> Yeah.

[8:12] Um, sorry. I'm going to close that

[8:16] really quick so I can look. Sorry, I'm

[8:18] not used to doing this on the computer.

[8:21] >> No worry.

[8:24] >> Um, I believe.

[8:27] >> Yeah. So,

[8:30] sorry. I was just going to say I was

[8:32] just looking at the property information

[8:33] in the back on the last page and that

[8:36] shows it's on page 12 of the staff

[8:38] report and it shows that um with an

[8:40] exception uh that they're allowed up to

[8:44] 4735

[8:46] roughly square feet. Um and they're

[8:49] showing to be just a bit under that and

[8:51] the ADU or I'm sorry 800 square feet of

[8:54] the ADU doesn't count towards the house

[8:55] or the total floor area.

[9:00] So that as part of their formal design

[9:01] review, they would include the resident

[9:03] size exception and that exception is

[9:06] does not trigger any special review does

[9:09] not trigger planning commission review.

[9:11] >> It's a calculation.

[9:12] >> It's just simply a a a calculation of

[9:14] lot area.

[9:21] » Any other questions?

[9:24] Yep. I know at this time uh lighting

[9:27] plan is not required but I thought I had

[9:29] also read someplace that something was

[9:31] included on the elevations but am I

[9:32] mistaken in that

[9:34] >> there's nothing included as far

[9:36] >> yet on the other on the ADU but should I

[9:39] say that's not

[9:41] >> uh yeah there's nothing for lighting

[9:42] sorry in uh in this submitt uh but in

[9:45] the ADU there's reference to the

[9:47] elevations maybe that's

[9:50] >> or you know what there might actually be

[9:52] lighting

[9:53] on there on on the elevations, but I

[9:55] don't think it's

[9:57] the symbol. I think it's from the 80

[9:59] when we were designing the whole

[10:00] building, the whole site, it was

[10:01] included, but we haven't put reference

[10:03] and a lighting plan in for for this

[10:05] building yet.

[10:05] >> Yeah, you have pictures in the planet,

[10:08] but you don't have a lighting plan.

[10:10] >> No, no.

[10:12] >> Yeah. And I'll just

[10:13] >> I'll just add that on like the

[10:15] elevations, you can kind of see like So,

[10:17] these are lights, but we don't have any

[10:20] more detail than that

[10:22] >> at this time. Go. Thank you.

[10:27] Now I see him.

[10:29] >> Any other questions?

[10:33] » Um, only question for me is having um

[10:38] reviewed story poles on site. the north

[10:42] west corner of the garage, the rear

[10:45] right corner of the garage looked to be

[10:48] I wasn't clear in my mind um whether it

[10:50] was close to the setback on the setback

[10:54] or whether it was um meeting this

[10:58] small percentage rule.

[11:01] >> Are you talking about this portion

[11:02] maybe?

[11:03] >> Yes. Yeah, I think um and maybe Dan can

[11:06] clarify, but I believe that so this part

[11:08] is like an overhang,

[11:10] >> which um is allowed to extend into a

[11:12] setback and this dash line is the

[11:14] setback line. So

[11:16] >> um

[11:18] we'll have to double check and make sure

[11:19] that that's meeting, you know, the

[11:21] maximum out they can extend into that

[11:22] setback. But um I think that's what

[11:24] that's showing there.

[11:26] >> You go six feet from a rear setback,

[11:29] three feet into a side.

[11:30] >> Yep. This is a side technically, but

[11:33] yeah,

[11:34] >> and the same thing applies on the other

[11:35] buildings.

[11:37] >> Yeah, for eaves or overhangs. Yes.

[11:40] >> And the and you might see the ADU in a

[11:41] setback, whereas those are up to 800

[11:44] square feet can go into the setback.

[11:48] » And then I did see the note in your

[11:50] report about um plate height for the

[11:52] garage needing to be reviewed before

[11:54] formal.

[11:56] Um yes, there there may have been I

[11:58] think it was either a plate height or an

[12:00] overall height that exceeded 17. So

[12:03] something that they'll have to um adjust

[12:04] because um you don't we don't want them

[12:08] to exceed the height.

[12:14] » Okay. All right. And no more questions?

[12:17] Nope. Nope. All right. With that, we'll

[12:19] move to um

[12:23] I've lost my copy of the script, so I

[12:25] coincident

[12:30] presentation. Um

[12:35] » uh we we don't have a other than what

[12:37] we've heard. We don't have uh an

[12:39] additional uh any additional materials

[12:41] to present. Um other than to say we're

[12:43] excited about the project. It's a uh

[12:45] we've been working on it for quite a

[12:46] while and um we're excited about the way

[12:48] it kind of addresses the site issues and does something for their family that

[12:52] they're pretty excited about. Um we've

[12:54] looked at second floors and basements.

[12:56] We've been all over the place with

[12:57] everything and kind of settled on this

[12:59] more uh simplified uh you know kind of

[13:02] strip back approach that we're taking

[13:03] here. Thank you. But I'm available for

[13:05] questions. We're

[13:06] >> all right. Well, let's let's move just

[13:07] to that to see if there are any

[13:09] questions from the board. So, um,

[13:13] >> questions I had off. So, yeah, I'm just

[13:15] clarifying the amount of windows.

[13:17] There's a ton of windows and we all love

[13:18] to have that much lighting and I was

[13:20] kind of a little bit confused on the

[13:22] orientation. So, they're going to face

[13:23] up toward the Putin or they're going to

[13:25] face down toward Mission.

[13:27] >> So, the the great majority of the glass

[13:29] is facing out of that courtyard. Uh the

[13:31] buildings are or oriented due east west

[13:34] and so uh this the south the the long

[13:37] faces of the buildings are facing south

[13:38] to take advantage of sun. Um and so yeah

[13:41] most of the glass is facing onto that

[13:42] little courtyard with smaller openings

[13:44] facing away towards neighboring

[13:46] properties.

[13:47] >> Thank you.

[13:49] >> And I'm I'm assuming because you have so

[13:51] much sunlight there. Beautiful. Um there

[13:54] you're you're doing the solar right on

[13:56] the roof.

[13:57] >> You know we haven't actually talked

[13:58] about solar yet. So, I assume there

[14:01] would be some involved. It's it's ample

[14:03] uh access to it, but I would have to

[14:05] talk to them about it. We haven't

[14:07] actually gotten to that yet.

[14:08] >> There's a certain building code

[14:09] requirement for some minimal solar, so

[14:11] they have to address that at the

[14:12] building permit stage.

[14:14] >> It's a perfect spot.

[14:16] >> Yeah, it is. We've got a lot of access

[14:17] other than the trees. It's a We've got a

[14:19] lot of access.

[14:21] >> Do encourage you to do a solar study. It

[14:23] might change the sighting of the

[14:25] building in terms of maximizing solar.

[14:27] That's true. Um there's not much we can

[14:30] do based on the setbacks and the trees

[14:33] on the property lines. There's kind of

[14:34] like no other way. We've we've really

[14:37] focused on focusing it towards the

[14:39] center of the site rather than uh you

[14:41] know uh spreading things out or around

[14:43] towards the property lines. So we kind

[14:45] of locked into looking inwards on this.

[14:49] Um but I think there's probably ample

[14:50] access to to sun from the north side of

[14:53] the site over the trees. I would think

[14:55] we should do a study though. I agree.

[15:02] Um, and I know that while the ADU is not

[15:04] part of this review, um, assure me that

[15:08] the style and material pallet and

[15:10] everything between ADU and main house is

[15:12] consistent.

[15:12] >> It's the same thing. Yes.

[15:16] » Um, yeah. Great. No other questions for

[15:20] me.

[15:21] >> Cool.

[15:22] >> No.

[15:23] >> Wow.

[15:24] >> Good. Left the trees alone.

[15:28] >> Thank you.

[15:33] » Yeah. No,

[15:34] >> I was almost there.

[15:35] >> Public comments. Yes. So again, we at

[15:38] this point we invite anyone in the

[15:40] public in the room. No online.

[15:42] >> No one online.

[15:46] » Um which point we move to board more

[15:49] board deliberation on this project.

[15:51] Who'd like to kick us off?

[15:55] I can I can the one thing and from going

[15:58] with what some of your neighbors said

[16:00] about um the screening um

[16:04] >> the the the screening of the project

[16:06] particularly because um the pool is out

[16:10] front. I mean, I see why you did it like

[16:12] that, but it would be helpful, I think,

[16:15] um, we don't necessarily have to see the

[16:18] landscape plans, but perhaps if you

[16:21] could start particularly like along like

[16:23] where the Putinham Putnham's property

[16:25] are, grow some trees now, you know,

[16:27] instead of waiting until the very end to

[16:30] do the landscaping, you know, put some

[16:32] oak so that or and do a nice screening

[16:37] so that people when they're driving by,

[16:39] they're not going to see the lawn and

[16:40] the pool. I mean, hopefully they won't

[16:42] be able to see any of that. So, I would

[16:44] be interested in seeing just um a little

[16:48] bit of a landscaping plan when the time

[16:50] is right.

[16:51] >> Right. Respond. Uh uh we are working on

[16:54] developing a landscape plan with a

[16:56] landscape architect. So, uh we would be

[16:57] able to show you that. Um she we've got

[17:00] an actually developed landscape plan. We

[17:01] have to make a few changes for some

[17:02] things we've done on site, but we can

[17:04] show you something as soon as a couple

[17:05] of weeks, I would imagine.

[17:06] >> That's great. But I I would urge you if

[17:08] you could plant some things sooner.

[17:10] >> There are private there are privets in

[17:11] existing um fruit trees and things.

[17:14] We're not intending to uh to remove

[17:15] those. I think they like some of those

[17:17] things. And the privets tend to grow as

[17:19] screening pretty well. So I think

[17:20] there's a effort to kind of extend those

[17:22] around a little bit further. Uh I think

[17:24] in the effort for for both neighbors to give everybody a little bit of

[17:28] privacy.

[17:28] >> And correct me if I'm wrong, but in

[17:30] addition to the gate, there's also an

[17:32] opaque fence. Right.

[17:34] >> There is the gate that we're proposing.

[17:36] We're not proposing to change any of the

[17:37] fences around.

[17:38] >> No, but there's a there's a fence that

[17:39] does go around the property with.

[17:41] >> There's one on the Which side is that?

[17:43] That's going to be the west side.

[17:44] There's a a CMU wall. Uh so there's

[17:47] actually a solid wall there for the that

[17:48] the neighbor has. The rest of it is

[17:50] mostly open open fencing. So there's no

[17:53] uh nothing opaque.

[17:54] >> Got it. Just when I was at the site, it

[17:56] didn't seem like you would be able to

[17:57] see the pool from the road.

[17:59] >> Yeah, I think I think you you probably

[18:02] could if there was no screening. Uh it is elevated a little bit. It's about

[18:06] the center of the site. We're trying to

[18:07] equal kind of uh minimize cut and fill

[18:10] by kind of doing it all on site. Um but

[18:12] there I think there is a chance that you

[18:14] could see something coming around that

[18:15] bend. So I think screening is is a good

[18:17] idea.

[18:19] >> I think

[18:21] um you can correct me if I'm wrong. Is

[18:23] the fence uh the gate is solid now? Is

[18:25] it?

[18:25] >> No, the gates open mesh

[18:28] >> in the new plan, but in the existing one

[18:29] it's a solid.

[18:30] >> Yeah, the existing one. So that's that's

[18:31] what I was getting at. So, so it's right

[18:33] now you don't see as much into the site

[18:35] where that won't

[18:35] >> That's true. You actually can't see it

[18:37] from Yeah. for the the existing site,

[18:39] but you will because the fence will be

[18:40] open or the gate will be open.

[18:47] » No, I I commend you for having one story

[18:58] with

[19:01] a

[19:04] Thank you.

[19:05] >> No, it's what a beautiful piece of

[19:08] >> It's a great little piece of property.

[19:10] Yeah.

[19:13] » For me? No.

[19:16] >> No. I've been by the property and it

[19:18] looks like a very suitable adaptation of

[19:20] the use of it. Great plan.

[19:26] » I concur.

[19:28] Sure.

[19:28] >> I do have a code question for Sage

[19:30] though that came up to mind.

[19:32] >> Um yeah, from my perspective I again I

[19:35] mean I echo

[19:37] I share's comments on on the simplicity

[19:40] and modesty of the property.

[19:44] We often are asked to review properties

[19:47] that are much grander scale. Um

[19:51] pallet color palette selection standing

[19:53] seam metal roof. I think these are all

[19:56] like nice choices relative to the

[19:57] residential design design guidelines for

[19:59] the town. Um

[20:02] placement of the house on the property I

[20:03] think is good. Um yeah. No, I think it's uh well considered for the

[20:10] property. So I'm supportive.

[20:14] Um with that we can put it to a vote. So

[20:17] uh

[20:17] >> I just I had a quick question for Sage.

[20:20] If somebody has a nonforming gate that

[20:23] might have been put in well before our

[20:25] recent gate code, are they entitled to

[20:28] replace it with a

[20:29] >> replacing it? No, the code is

[20:31] interesting with gates. It actually

[20:32] specifically says that you have to when

[20:35] you replace it essentially you have to

[20:37] conform to the requirements of the

[20:39] chapter. So it says something along

[20:41] those lines. So sometimes people just

[20:43] keep their solid gates but otherwise

[20:44] when replacing it it should be

[20:46] compliant. It's kind of unique compared

[20:47] to say your building. Um if it's

[20:50] non-conforming, you can replace that

[20:52] where it is. So a little bit different

[20:54] for gates.

[20:55] >> And the new one will be six and a half,

[20:57] not 8 ft.

[20:58] >> Uh yeah, the six feet is maximum for G

[21:00] gates and fences. And so so you'd have

[21:02] to hold to the minimum and then you have

[21:04] to be at least 40% open for a gate.

[21:12] So, the property is um they installed

[21:15] story poles. Um I didn't hear any

[21:18] recommended changes for the project. Um

[21:21] the ASRB, well, sorry, I should take

[21:24] that back. Um the ASRB commended the

[21:26] applicant uh for providing a one-story

[21:29] design with a low building profile um

[21:32] and using color and materials that are

[21:34] consistent with the residential design

[21:36] guidelines and surrounding area. Um

[21:38] there is a recommendation uh for the

[21:40] applicant to uh apply landscape

[21:44] screening along the eastern property

[21:46] line uh to help screen the pool from the

[21:48] driveway on the adjacent the road

[21:50] Mission Trail Road. Um, and with that

[21:54] installed story polls. Uh, so if there

[21:57] aren't any other comments, um, or if

[21:59] there are any comments, please let me

[22:01] know. Then otherwise, the ASRB can

[22:03] decide if it should go to staff or

[22:05] formal design review or come back to the

[22:06] ASRB.

[22:10] » Considering our consensus of quietness,

[22:14] I would recommend a formal design with

[22:16] staff.

[22:19] >> Want to make that a motion?

[22:24] due to the No, I'm not I motion to move

[22:29] this project to formal staff.

[22:32] >> I would second the motion.

[22:34] >> Chair Lindseay,

[22:35] >> yes.

[22:36] >> Vice Chair Comra,

[22:37] >> yes.

[22:37] >> Member Delgavio,

[22:38] >> yes.

[22:39] >> Member Middleman,

[22:40] >> yes.

[22:41] >> And member Sullivan,

[22:42] >> yes.

[22:46] You'll receive a letter in the next day

[22:47] or two outlining what just occurred for

[22:49] and the next steps.

[22:51] >> Thank you everyone.

[22:52] >> Thank you.

[22:53] >> Go home early.

[22:54] >> Congratulations.

[22:56] >> Thanks Sarah.

[22:59] >> Good. All right. Closing the public

[23:01] hearing and uh director's reports, two

[23:04] of them.

[23:04] >> Uh yes. Um I'll just kind of primarily

[23:07] focus on December um given that that and

[23:11] provides our housing numbers for the

[23:13] year. Um, so not amazing, but definitely

[23:16] not bad. Um, and so there's a total of

[23:19] 23 ADUs uh for permits issued in 2025.

[23:24] 11 for single family dwellings, which is

[23:26] a little bit higher than usual. And the

[23:28] 23 ADUs is right up there with kind of

[23:32] what we've been seeing over the last few

[23:34] years. Um, and I'll just remind

[23:36] everybody that the target ADU production

[23:40] um, for this housing element cycle is 15

[23:42] per year. So every year we've been doing

[23:44] over 20. Um so that's good news just to

[23:47] kind of see that some of our you know

[23:49] changes to our codes obviously along

[23:52] with state laws um have been helping uh

[23:55] make it more flexible for people to uh

[23:58] construct ADUs and um we're working with

[24:02] the town attorney's office and we'll be

[24:04] bringing back even further changes to

[24:06] the ADU ordinance in the first quarter

[24:08] of 2026 um just to ensure that we're

[24:12] compliant with everything in state law

[24:13] and um to provide probably even more

[24:16] flexibility when appropriate.

[24:21] » I have two questions.

[24:22] >> Um

[24:24] the first, if we project these numbers

[24:26] out for the rest of the venus cycle,

[24:28] where do where does it bring us with our

[24:30] numbers?

[24:31] >> I don't know off the top of my head, but

[24:33] um it probably gets us pretty close um

[24:37] to the numbers. I I I think you'd still

[24:40] have some concern with hitting above

[24:42] moderate um numbers. Um and then also

[24:45] it's dependent on how HCD uh looks at

[24:49] affordability for ADUs. Um every year

[24:53] they're kind of continue to

[24:57] talk about um not using the Abag study

[25:01] which is what's been relied upon for

[25:03] some jurisdictions in the past. It's a

[25:05] formulaic way of distributing the ADU at

[25:07] income levels. Um and so that's

[25:10] something that we just need to keep eye

[25:12] on every year. Uh but at the end of the

[25:14] day, it's always important to remember

[25:16] that it's not just the numbers that we

[25:19] need to hit, but all the different goals

[25:21] and strategies of the housing element

[25:23] because they implement different housing

[25:26] types. Um and so that's something that's

[25:28] still very important. Um and uh so but

[25:32] the above moderate numbers and single

[25:34] family dwellings, you know, that's

[25:36] something that we need to keep an eye on

[25:37] as well. Um but uh at some point uh more

[25:42] of the ADUs will be counting probably

[25:44] towards above moderate. Anyway,

[25:47] >> then my second question um in the last

[25:50] housing element cycle we had to we were

[25:54] told to bring that number down for the

[25:56] year.

[25:59] Is there in those discussions was there

[26:01] appetite that if we showed that we could

[26:03] beat a higher number that we could use

[26:05] it in the next cycle or the latter half

[26:07] of the cycle?

[26:08] >> Yeah, we'll have to see what they do

[26:10] next cycle. So what happened at the last

[26:12] cycle was

[26:14] there there was a lot there from my

[26:17] recollection there was

[26:20] concern that if you used more than the

[26:22] four-year average the four years prior

[26:25] to that housing element cycle then there

[26:29] would probably be a much larger

[26:30] potential that they would not allow you

[26:32] to rely on that a bag study and income

[26:35] distribution. Um so therefore the town

[26:39] you know and it was a low average in particular it

[26:45] was the first year of COVID was in that

[26:47] cycle um whereas there was no exception

[26:50] for that but we did see a drop in

[26:53] production that year and so uh 15 units

[26:56] was the average moving forward in the

[26:58] next cycle if we're hitting 22 average

[27:01] or something like that um we'll just

[27:03] have to see what the regulations are and

[27:06] the requirements are for the new housing

[27:08] cycle. Um before I'd make any

[27:10] assumptions.

[27:11] >> And Sage, what's going on with the

[27:13] Butler property?

[27:14] >> Um the applicants just continuing to

[27:18] kind of submit information.

[27:20] Um the the next steps is, you know,

[27:25] getting the application deemed complete.

[27:28] Um the SQA work has been initiated

[27:32] although cannot be completed until all

[27:34] of the information submitted. Um the

[27:37] town is working on a uh master sewer

[27:41] study. Um and so that's looking at

[27:44] capacity for the town center. Um and

[27:46] this property would need to connect to

[27:48] the town center assessment district. Uh

[27:50] so it's likely that there is capacity.

[27:53] It's something that's um

[27:56] probably not an issue for this project,

[27:58] but that it's something that they're

[28:00] completing to have the hard evidence and

[28:03] that's part of what this project needs

[28:05] to understand if it can connect to

[28:07] sewer. So part of the project is waiting

[28:10] for the town study which would probably

[28:12] be they're guessing March maybe April to

[28:15] have that completed.

[28:18] Do any of the new 2026 housing laws

[28:20] apply to the Butler project or the other

[28:22] high net projects in

[28:24] >> they are we asking the questions right

[28:28] now they're not proposing anything at

[28:30] any restricted income level.

[28:32] >> No I just remember that one of the law I

[28:34] can't remember the details but it

[28:36] alleviated some of the SQL requirements.

[28:39] >> Uh something I'm I'm looking at those

[28:41] new laws. Um there's about four of them

[28:43] I think that are most in that are

[28:45] something that we need to closely look

[28:47] at a little bit further. Um so we'll be

[28:49] double checking that. Um it's it's the

[28:52] subdivision itself. Um it's not

[28:54] necessarily

[28:56] uh the development the development for

[28:58] at least the multif family housing was

[29:01] something contemplated with the housing

[29:02] element um uh EIR whereas the proposed

[29:07] subdivision and the additional single

[29:10] family residences were not contemplated.

[29:12] So some type of the consultants are

[29:15] looking at what type of secret document

[29:17] would come out of this whether it's some

[29:19] type of addendum or you know uh maybe

[29:22] not the need for a full-blown EI given

[29:24] some reliance on a town's EIR study that

[29:27] was already completed.

[29:30] » Last but not least, how about that other

[29:32] Putinham project that was

[29:34] >> um so there's uh two kind of different

[29:37] ones. There's the subdivision at 11:01

[29:39] Kenyatta. Um so they are just satisfying

[29:44] their conditions uh to get their permits

[29:47] to construct the private road. Um so to

[29:50] demolish what's out there and construct

[29:51] the private road. That's actually

[29:53] something that they need to do and

[29:54] complete before the final map gets

[29:57] recorded. So the tenative map has been

[29:59] approved. They have this construction

[30:01] permit there. They should be starting to

[30:04] work on that in the spring and then um

[30:07] sometime shortly after that uh

[30:09] presumably it would go to council.

[30:11] really just looks to make sure

[30:13] that all the conditions are complied

[30:15] with. So it's not rehashing the

[30:17] discussion. It's really saying, "Hey,

[30:18] you were supposed to do this. Did you do

[30:20] it?" And if they did, then the final map

[30:22] can be approved and recorded with the

[30:24] county.

[30:25] >> Is it determined that they're going to

[30:26] build the all Putnhams are going to

[30:28] >> They haven't submitted for any permits.

[30:31] um you know depending who I believe

[30:34] they're trying to sell it and so it just

[30:36] I think depends on who whether that's

[30:39] bought individually or someone buys the

[30:40] whole thing. Um we just don't have any

[30:43] of that firm information.

[30:44] >> You said there was a second one.

[30:46] >> Oh, sorry. They just had uh I it was

[30:49] planning commission. Um there's parcels

[30:53] up at the top at the end of Mission

[30:54] Trail that back up to the I280 and that

[30:58] project um there was a restrict when

[31:01] that property was subdivided many years

[31:02] ago. There was a 100 foot setback from

[31:05] the freeway placed on those properties

[31:08] and that coincided with an old code and

[31:11] general plan requirement that required a

[31:13] 200t setback from the I280. So when they

[31:17] did the map, they received a variance to

[31:19] only do the 100 ft. That got recorded on

[31:22] the property. Since then, the town has

[31:25] taken that setback off of most of the

[31:28] properties along the I280. It still is

[31:31] along some of them like on more road,

[31:33] some of the larger properties still have

[31:35] that restriction. Um

[31:37] >> 100 for 200

[31:38] >> for 200. Um and uh but it does so that

[31:41] no longer by code or general plan apply

[31:44] to these properties. So, it's a matter

[31:46] of getting that um easement restriction

[31:50] abandoned by the town. So, the planning

[31:52] commission looked at that and found it

[31:54] the abandonment consistent with the

[31:56] general plan and they're doing some

[31:58] technical things. We'll go to the

[31:59] council for the final decision on that.

[32:04] you know how

[32:08] » yeah it's it's what what you saw with

[32:10] the size of the properties is that um it

[32:13] created a very tiny building envelope

[32:15] with the front and side setbacks. Uh so

[32:18] then it probably would have triggered

[32:19] them to push something into another

[32:21] setback somewhere else. Uh and so given

[32:24] that I think it provides a more

[32:25] realistic flexibility and whoever

[32:28] designs home out there will probably

[32:31] their own accord try to stay as far away

[32:33] from the freeway noise as possible.

[32:36] So just just as a matter of process so I

[32:39] understand what you said if the town

[32:41] removes setback requirement

[32:45] >> that it the required variances or I was

[32:49] trying to follow it

[32:51] >> each individual property that has to go

[32:53] and get that vacated

[32:54] >> they they this got recorded on the

[32:56] parcel map

[32:58] >> I see

[32:58] >> and so that's what they're getting

[32:59] vacated and so the code is already

[33:02] changed but they still have this

[33:03] restriction placed on these particular

[33:05] property.

[33:06] >> So if they wanted a bell,

[33:08] >> I see.

[33:09] >> So what they're doing is get rid of

[33:10] getting rid of that recorded

[33:12] restriction. Um and then from there they

[33:15] just follow the code.

[33:20] » That's so much fun at work.

[33:24] » Thank you very much.

[33:26] >> 5:00. Um, one thing I just want to

[33:28] notice, I do want to um, just let

[33:30] everyone know um, that the town is

[33:32] accepting applications uh, for planning

[33:34] commission districts one and three. Um,

[33:38] I forget which one, one of the members

[33:40] has moved out of the district, so that's

[33:42] probably open. And then

[33:45] >> the other the other member, I'm just not

[33:48] sure if they're going to run again. But

[33:49] in either case, anyone can apply. So

[33:51] pass the word around. Um, if you know

[33:52] anyone in districts one and three and

[33:54] they're interested in um

[33:58] I'd have to double check. I just I know

[34:00] these districts can one

[34:12] » or Yeah. So, yeah, we can just we can

[34:14] double check. They can call the town. We

[34:16] can double check.

[34:18] >> There are maps posted online.

[34:20] >> Yes, that as well. Yep.

[34:22] >> Okay.

Architectural and Site Review Board Special Meeting - January 12, 2026

Transcript