[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.