[0:13] So, um, calling to order

[0:18] ASRB meeting for Monday, May the 4th. U,

[0:22] feels like it's been ages since the last

[0:24] one.

[0:28] It has.

[0:30] So, we we might be a little rusty

[0:32] tonight. Um, can I can I have a roll

[0:36] call, please?

[0:37] >> Chair Lindsay,

[0:38] >> present.

[0:39] >> Vice Chair Comra,

[0:41] >> member Doug Aio, member Middleman,

[0:43] >> present,

[0:44] >> and member Sullivan

[0:52] » Summer.

[0:53] Yeah,

[0:58] » there we go. Okay, just a reminder to

[1:00] anyone in the public who's attending

[1:02] tonight in person, if you could remember

[1:04] to sign in on our sign-in sheet at the

[1:07] entrance, uh on the way in or on the way

[1:09] out. Either way is good. Um do we have

[1:13] any changes to the agenda tonight?

[1:16] >> There are no changes to the agenda. Um

[1:18] there is one desk item for the project

[1:21] at 578 Mountain Home Road and that will

[1:24] be discussed during that presentation.

[1:26] Okay.

[1:28] Um at this point we call for any member

[1:31] of the public who wishes to make a

[1:33] comment on any topic not on tonight's

[1:37] agenda. You're welcome to do so now.

[1:40] And if you're online, you could uh raise

[1:42] your hand.

[1:46] » There's no one online. No one on um I

[1:50] don't see anyone in the room standing up

[1:52] rushing to the microphone.

[1:57] Um so we'll close the public

[1:59] communications and I don't believe

[2:01] there's anything on the consent agenda.

[2:03] >> Uh there is there's just the minutes of

[2:05] January 12th.

[2:06] >> Okay. Does any member of the board or

[2:09] the public wish to pull that topic for

[2:12] disc further discussion? Otherwise,

[2:13] we'll just pass everything on the

[2:16] consent agenda with one motion.

[2:19] No.

[2:25] » Okay.

[2:25] >> Second motion.

[2:27] >> I second the motion. Great.

[2:29] >> Thanks,

[2:30] >> Chair Lindseay.

[2:30] >> Yes.

[2:31] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[2:32] >> Member Delgavio.

[2:33] >> Yes.

[2:34] >> Member Middleman.

[2:35] >> Yes.

[2:35] >> Member Sullivan.

[2:37] >> Yes. Great. Thanks. Um so the first

[2:41] actually first topic on tonight's agenda

[2:42] I believe is the reelection of the chair

[2:45] and vice chair roles. Is that correct?

[2:49] >> That is correct. So um every two years

[2:52] per the charter um there is a change in

[2:55] chair and vice chair. So um in terms of

[2:58] the process and if I mess anything up

[3:00] Julie will correct me.

[3:01] >> Um

[3:02] >> I'll correct you.

[3:02] >> Thank you. um that uh you'll have a

[3:06] motion, you'll have it, you'll take

[3:08] nominations uh I believe for the chair

[3:10] first um and then uh if there's um only

[3:15] one nomine you'll vote on those nominees

[3:18] uh and then the person with the most

[3:19] votes will become chair and then you'll

[3:21] do the same for vice chair. You'll take

[3:23] nominations

[3:25] um and then uh vote for those

[3:27] nominations. And just to clarify the

[3:30] regulation um

[3:33] this puts a learn a term limit

[3:34] effectively on the roles uh in an effort

[3:36] to rotate u committee members through

[3:39] the positions. Um if can the chair serve

[3:42] as vice chair at the end of that two

[3:45] years and can

[3:46] >> um elevated top your head

[3:51] » doesn't explicitly state that you cannot

[3:54] um but because of the two-year

[3:59] >> I think we'd have to look at the

[4:00] calendar there's a chance that if you

[4:02] went back to vice chair and then went

[4:03] for chair again that you may not be able

[4:06] to but we need to look at that further I

[4:07] think

[4:09] >> it's a loosely defined regulation.

[4:11] >> It's I my understanding is you can you

[4:14] can be chair for no more than two years

[4:17] within a 4-year period

[4:19] >> and the same goes for vice chair

[4:21] >> believe. So I have a question. Can can

[4:25] we make a motion that

[4:28] the chair stays on for the next year?

[4:31] >> Um it's something I can look into with

[4:34] the town attorney. If that's where the

[4:35] board wants to go and just has a

[4:37] consensus on that, then I'd want to

[4:39] check with the town attorney's office

[4:41] and we probably bring that back at the

[4:43] next meeting.

[4:44] >> I would like to do that. I know done a

[4:47] great job and seems to have an interest.

[4:49] >> Just a reminder to speak in the mic.

[4:51] >> Oh, seems to have an interest in

[4:52] remaining as chair. And if it just means

[4:55] postponing that for one more time, I'm

[4:58] okay if we want to look into it.

[5:01] >> I would look to the rest of the board.

[5:03] Um that

[5:05] >> I'd be fine if he wants to stay

[5:16] » just like for consistency first.

[5:19] >> Oh, I think he's asking a question

[5:21] because he wants to stay or he wouldn't

[5:22] have.

[5:22] >> Um so so yeah and then just make sure

[5:25] microphone's on. Um R Sullivan,

[5:28] >> do we have that option right now

[5:30] considering the way the code is? I mean,

[5:32] at this point, I would continuing for an

[5:35] one more meeting is not a significant

[5:37] issue. So, I was just we'd be

[5:39] tableabling the item. I wouldn't be

[5:40] taking that action. If that's where the

[5:43] board wants to go, then I would have to

[5:45] consult with the town manager, town

[5:46] attorney's office to see if that's a

[5:48] path that could be taken.

[5:51] >> See if I can summarize right. The debate

[5:53] is if we're going to motion to table

[5:56] the nomination of chair and vice chair

[5:58] for a meeting in order for one cycle in

[6:01] order to get a proper answer on if

[6:05] uh the chair and or vice chair can

[6:08] extend their terms.

[6:09] >> That's correct.

[6:10] >> I I personally am not because I only

[6:11] have one more year. I'm not going to so

[6:14] this would just be for the chair not for

[6:16] the chair and the vice chair. So we

[6:18] would be getting another person on the

[6:20] committee in that position.

[6:22] >> Well, I I do think that we should do

[6:24] both nominations together,

[6:26] >> right? Correct. No, that that's what

[6:29] Yeah, that's what we would do. We would

[6:30] table both nominations and then and they

[6:33] would still, you know, those votes would

[6:34] still have to occur.

[6:38] » So, you're looking for a motion to

[6:39] continue?

[6:39] >> Um, I think the direction is fine. We'll just um continue that to the next

[6:44] meeting.

[6:46] >> Second. You need a vote on that?

[6:48] >> Um, sure. Let's do a vote. So, it's it's

[6:52] clear that it's a unanimous decision.

[6:54] >> Chair Lindseay.

[6:56] >> Uh, sure.

[6:57] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[6:58] >> Yes.

[6:59] >> Member Delgavio.

[7:00] >> Yes.

[7:01] >> Member Middleman.

[7:02] >> Yes.

[7:02] >> Member Sullivan.

[7:03] >> Yes.

[7:07] » Okay. Take that up next meeting. So, uh,

[7:10] first item on the agenda tonight is, um,

[7:13] I believe we're, which order are we

[7:15] doing? doing uh 578 Mountain Rome Road

[7:17] first. Yes.

[7:18] >> Yep.

[7:18] >> Okay, great.

[7:23] » KGO's giving all the presentations

[7:25] tonight.

[7:26] >> That's correct.

[7:37] » Hello and thank you. I will be

[7:39] introducing the project at 578 Mountain

[7:41] Home Road for architectural and site

[7:44] review board review. For this conceptual

[7:46] design review project, the applicant is

[7:49] proposing to demolish three existing

[7:52] accessory structures and a single family

[7:55] dwelling and to construct a new single

[7:57] family dwelling, a new barn with an

[8:00] interior ADU, a new detached ADU, a new

[8:04] detached pool house, a conversion of the

[8:07] remaining portion of the existing single

[8:09] family dwelling into a detached

[8:11] structure with a new addition and

[8:14] associated site improve. improvements.

[8:16] And so there is one desk item uh for

[8:19] this project for you all today. Um if

[8:22] you flip to page two of that desk item,

[8:25] uh it kind of sheds light into what the

[8:27] adjacent neighbor is um uh has concerns

[8:31] about. Uh the adjacent neighbor to the

[8:33] northeast of the project site noted uh

[8:36] that they have no issues with the

[8:37] project itself, but rather concerns of

[8:40] uh future construction staging and

[8:42] traffic. uh the neighbor utilizes the

[8:45] public rightway easement to access their

[8:47] property uh which I will be talking more

[8:50] about in the next slide and that they

[8:52] are requesting that the easement area is

[8:54] not used for parking and storage during

[8:57] construction. Uh during the next stage

[9:00] of design review and during the building

[9:02] permit stages, uh staff will have an

[9:04] opportunity to look closer at these uh

[9:06] preliminary uh construction and or uh

[9:09] staging and traffic plans and ensure

[9:11] that the neighbors concern uh in this

[9:13] desk item are addressed.

[9:20] So moving on to the property

[9:22] description,

[9:24] uh the project site is 12.6 6 acres and

[9:28] it is in the SCP5 zoning district. Uh

[9:31] the basic setbacks for properties in the

[9:33] zoning district is 50 ft minimum from

[9:36] all sides. Uh this subject site is

[9:38] accessed through Hooper Lane, a private

[9:41] uh culde-sac street serving 550 through

[9:44] 598 Mountain Home Road properties. Uh

[9:47] the ex existing driveway begins at the

[9:49] end of Hooper Lane and extends southwest

[9:52] towards the uh single family dwelling.

[9:55] Uh, as I mentioned before, a near narrow

[9:58] strip of land on the northeastern uh

[10:00] portion of the site is a ride-of-way

[10:02] easement for the driveway of that

[10:04] neighboring property. Uh, that driveway

[10:07] uh begins from Blue Ridge Lane and is

[10:10] nonaccessible to that uh to this project

[10:13] site. Um, and so the topography of the

[10:16] site uh slopes gently from the east uh

[10:19] down to the central portion of the

[10:21] property. Uh the slope then declines

[10:23] significantly uh towards the western uh

[10:26] rear portion of the project site. The

[10:29] rear portion is uh heavily wooded and

[10:31] undeveloped. Uh the property includes a

[10:34] uh one 100 ft wide conservation easement

[10:38] on this western portion of the project

[10:40] site as well as a 15t wide equestrian

[10:43] easement along the western portion of

[10:45] the project site as well as a 15t wide

[10:48] uh sorry a 10-ft wide easement for

[10:51] electric utilities uh through through

[10:53] that center portion of the site. And so

[10:56] there are uh existing solar panels

[10:58] adjacent to that equestrian easement

[11:00] along the western edge. Um at this time

[11:03] there's no details uh about those uh

[11:05] existing solar panels.

[11:10] And so these are some of the existing

[11:12] pictures of the existing structures that

[11:15] are not supposed to be demolished uh at

[11:18] this time. Um and so this includes uh

[11:20] the equipment barn uh at the rear uh

[11:23] portion of the site uh the utility

[11:25] bunker as well as those ancillary

[11:27] structures uh adjacent to the existing

[11:30] garden area.

[11:35] And so this plan sheet here shows the

[11:37] proposed demolition plan. Uh this

[11:39] includes uh the maintenance garage, uh

[11:42] the garage and the guest house which are

[11:44] proposed to be fully demolished. uh as

[11:47] well as uh the majority of the main

[11:49] residents uh except for the uh

[11:51] library/pavilion

[11:53] uh structure which I will get to in a

[11:54] little bit. Uh and uh also um some

[11:58] hardscaping around the main residence.

[12:04] And this is um additional pictures of

[12:06] those structures that are supposed to be

[12:08] removed. Uh and on the left you can see

[12:10] the existing guest house photos. Uh the

[12:13] existing maintenance garage photos in

[12:15] this column. Uh the existing garage

[12:17] photos in this column. And on the very

[12:19] right is the existing photos of that

[12:21] main residence.

[12:27] And so this is the proposed site plan

[12:29] which shows the extent of where the main

[12:31] residence will be located. Uh the

[12:33] footprint of the main residence will be

[12:34] shifted slightly uh further uh west.

[12:39] uh and also shows the locations of that

[12:42] uh detached ADU pool house and pavilion

[12:46] structure.

[12:51] And so these are the elevation plan

[12:53] sheets starting with the main residence.

[12:55] Um, as noted in the staff report, uh,

[12:57] the applicant at this time is, uh,

[13:00] proposing a structure of the main

[13:02] residence, um, that has portions that

[13:05] are greater than 30 ft in height. Uh,

[13:08] and at this time, uh, staff is

[13:11] recommending, uh, as noted in the staff

[13:13] report that the applicant reduce their

[13:15] height uh, for a variance uh, for

[13:19] variance not to be required uh, during

[13:22] the formal design review stage. would

[13:24] which would have to be reviewed by the

[13:26] planning commission.

[13:30] And so these are the other um post

[13:32] elevation. Uh this is for the south and

[13:35] north.

[13:39] And these are the proposed elevations

[13:41] for that newborn with an interior ADU.

[13:48] This is the proposed elevations uh for

[13:51] that new ADU.

[13:55] and the proposed elevations for the new

[13:57] pool house.

[14:02] This is the proposed elevation for the

[14:03] pavilion and also noted in the staff

[14:06] report uh a variance would be required

[14:08] for this uh detached pavilion. Uh this

[14:12] currently this pavilion is part of that

[14:14] main residence. But uh once the main

[14:17] residence um is shifted away from this

[14:21] pavilion structure, this detached

[14:23] pavilion would actually have to be

[14:25] meeting um basic height limitations for

[14:28] uh accessory structures, not for uh so

[14:31] in this case uh since this pavilion

[14:34] structure exceeds that 17 ft uh basic

[14:37] height allowed for accessory structures,

[14:40] a variance would be required.

[14:47] Um at this time it's uh a variance to

[14:50] height.

[14:52] Oh uh it's showing uh

[15:01] » it's 19 ft. It's about 19 feet.

[15:10] And these are the proposed elevations uh

[15:12] for that court courtyard. And as noted

[15:14] in the staff report, uh the majority of

[15:16] this courtyard is existing. And uh they

[15:19] are looking to do um uh some minor

[15:22] improvements uh throughout this exterior

[15:25] uh walls of this courtyard area and also

[15:28] restoring this uh coupa.

[15:34] And uh at this time uh there are no

[15:36] physical material samples uh and this is

[15:39] not a requirement for the conceptual

[15:40] design review stage. Uh however they uh

[15:43] presented uh digital samples of the

[15:46] those materials uh including for that

[15:48] main house poolhouse/barn

[15:51] and for the ADU which includes wood

[15:54] siding uh stone veneer for the wall and

[15:57] uh dark metal roof metal roof. And for

[16:01] that library pavilion and courtyard, uh

[16:03] they're proposing uh bricks as exterior

[16:06] materials and uh copper gutters and uh

[16:10] steel windows.

[16:13] And the applicant has also provided

[16:15] additional renderings.

[16:18] And that concludes my presentation. Uh

[16:20] staff is happy to answer any questions.

[16:23] Uh story pools were installed at the

[16:24] site at least 10 days before the hearing

[16:26] date and the applicant is also here in

[16:28] attendance to answer any questions.

[16:30] Thank you.

[16:31] >> Thank you. Um does anyone on the board

[16:34] have questions of staff?

[16:36] >> There's one question. Why would it be a

[16:38] height variances versus a height

[16:40] exception?

[16:44] So for

[16:47] it the exception

[16:51] to height variance would require uh

[16:54] specific findings um for that main

[16:57] residence which at this time they cannot

[17:00] meet and that includes um the 100 foot

[17:04] minimum setbacks required uh for the

[17:07] entirety of that main residence

[17:09] structure. So at this time they don't

[17:11] meet that uh requirement. So uh if they

[17:15] wish to pursue uh a variance to height

[17:19] uh they can go through the uh standard

[17:21] variance process uh during the formal

[17:22] design review stage.

[17:24] >> Thank you.

[17:31] » It says

[17:44] the the main thing with the detached

[17:46] structures is just what's inside of

[17:48] them. And so if it has a full bathroom

[17:51] and a kitchen and then either just an

[17:53] open room like a studio apartment or a

[17:55] separate bedroom, that would qualify as

[17:57] an ADU. Whereas you might have a pool

[18:00] house that doesn't have a kitchen in it.

[18:02] And so if it doesn't have those three

[18:04] components for eating, sleeping, and

[18:05] bathing, um, then it's not considered an

[18:08] ADU.

[18:09] And so they sometimes call it a pool

[18:11] house. They may call a guest house or

[18:13] something like that. Just not

[18:14] technically an ADU.

[18:18] >> It's

[18:18] >> so Yeah. So detached structures other

[18:21] than barns can be up to,500 square feet

[18:24] regardless of the use as long as the use

[18:26] is permitted.

[18:30] I wanted to clarify the exterior uh

[18:32] surface of the barn, not of the barn of

[18:36] the ADU and the other buildings. Some of

[18:38] the renderings and I understand their

[18:39] renderings look like it's light in

[18:41] finish and then some some of the others

[18:42] look like it's all very dark.

[18:44] >> Do we know?

[18:45] >> It's a good question. So, we reached out

[18:46] to the applicant and hopefully they can

[18:48] answer that question tonight.

[18:59] answer that.

[19:00] >> It's a good question. So, uh they are

[19:02] already over their maximum allowable

[19:04] paved area. And so, in the code, um if

[19:08] you are swapping more than 250 square

[19:12] ft, which they would be doing here,

[19:13] meaning they're taking some away from

[19:15] this part of the property and adding

[19:17] more to that part of the property. There

[19:20] is a code requirement in which I always

[19:23] try to struggle to explain this but you

[19:25] have to you you have to reduce the

[19:28] amount that you exceed the maximum by

[19:31] 25%.

[19:33] So whatever you exceed over what you're

[19:35] allowed you have to reduce that number

[19:37] by 25%.

[19:39] Um so if you are over

[19:43] uh you know by 20,000 square feet you

[19:46] have to reduce that overage by

[19:50] >> so so heavy

[19:50] >> 4,000. Yes, they've show they've shown

[19:52] some preliminary plans. There are some

[19:54] uh things we need some clarifications on

[19:56] for the formal design review stage. Um

[19:58] but it looks like they can probably

[20:00] accomplish that.

[20:05] » Good. Any other questions?

[20:09] um

[20:11] height exceptions or variances on

[20:13] existing structures. Um is there an

[20:16] amount of structural change that needs

[20:18] to happen before that's triggered or

[20:20] >> So th this is the case with this

[20:21] particular proposal is that you have a

[20:24] portion of a building that is part of a

[20:26] main residence. Main residences can be

[20:28] up to 30 feet tall. And so this portion

[20:31] of the main residence is around 19 ft

[20:33] tall. That is conforming. it conforms to

[20:36] the existing standards for main

[20:37] residence. Now that they're going to

[20:39] demolish the main residence and make

[20:41] this a detached building, it would

[20:43] create a nonconforming situation because

[20:45] it was um over the 17 ft tall. So if if

[20:50] it was just already existing

[20:51] nonconforming,

[20:53] no variance would would be required. I

[20:55] mean, it's already a detached building

[20:56] that's over the 17 ft tall and that was

[20:59] built a long time ago and that's okay.

[21:01] But because it's creating that situation

[21:04] in which it was a conforming height,

[21:06] this would now need a variance to allow

[21:08] it to remain there. And given you have

[21:10] an existing structure, sometimes that

[21:12] will be weighed in. Um, we'll look

[21:14] closer at the demo plan. You know, if

[21:15] they're demoing most of the building,

[21:17] does it make sense? Um, but if they're

[21:19] just demoing a portion of it to do the

[21:20] little addition for the bathrooms, um,

[21:22] that's something that could be looked

[21:23] at.

[21:24] >> Oh, actually, my question. So, the 19 ft

[21:26] is the current roof height.

[21:28] >> That's correct.

[21:30] It's not historic.

[21:33] >> We are we have initiated a historical

[21:35] review through the town's historian. So

[21:38] that will be part of what we have with

[21:39] the formal design review. Um I don't

[21:42] believe so at this time, but we'll get

[21:43] that report.

[21:47] » Great. Any other questions?

[21:49] >> They also have those.

[21:52] >> That's correct. So they they for the

[21:53] barn, they've gone through the livestock

[21:55] committee um for the conceptual review.

[21:58] they've raised some questions and

[21:59] they'll come back to answer those

[22:01] questions at the formal design review

[22:02] stage.

[22:04] >> And do all those questions need to be

[22:06] resolved before formal?

[22:08] >> Um depending on what level of detail it

[22:11] is. Um sometimes you get into things

[22:12] like ventilation and you know that maybe

[22:15] comes more at the building permit stage.

[22:17] Um so uh we'll look at their questions

[22:21] and see how they can be answered and

[22:22] what things maybe just get conditioned

[22:24] for the building permit stage. Are there

[22:26] parts of the municipal code that

[22:28] specifically talk about ADUs and barns

[22:31] in the same structure?

[22:32] >> Yes. Um, so that was actually that's

[22:35] something that's been in the code for a

[22:36] while. It was probably like cycle 4 or

[22:39] something of the housing element back in

[22:41] like the 2000s area. Um, so that was

[22:43] done uh yeah well over 20 years ago. So

[22:46] barns have been allowed in ADUs for some

[22:48] time now. We've made some adjustments

[22:50] given state laws and things like that

[22:52] >> and the most recent adjustment allows

[22:54] for up to two ADUs in a barn. Correct.

[22:57] >> Uh yeah, I mean we the there's a change

[23:01] in which barns can be fully converted to

[23:03] ADUs. And so that was looking at, you

[23:06] know, if someone wanted to convert that

[23:08] barn into two ADUs, they could do that.

[23:10] Um then if you're just building a new

[23:12] barn with an attached ADU, there's

[23:15] regulations for that proposal. And can a

[23:18] barn support a Jedu? Uh, no. Jadus are

[23:21] to be within main residences. Right.

[23:24] Good.

[23:24] >> And what was the overall lot coverage?

[23:28] >> Yeah.

[23:57] Okay, sorry. Um, so we that's something

[23:59] that we still need that level of detail.

[24:00] It's not required for conceptual review

[24:03] maybe confusion with the other

[24:04] application. Um, but they do they have

[24:07] to provide that for formal design

[24:08] review. Um, it's just not required at

[24:10] this stage.

[24:13] >> Okay.

[24:15] Any last questions of staff?

[24:18] >> One more reminder of what the ADU code

[24:20] is.

[24:21] >> So you're allowed two ADUs

[24:25] attached or detached. You can have a

[24:27] third if you have a J AU. Correct.

[24:29] >> Um you can have three ADUs attached or

[24:32] detached and on a property of this size

[24:34] >> without a J AU.

[24:35] and then you could also

[24:37] have the J AU.

[24:38] >> Okay. I missed it. Thank you.

[24:44] I think that's it for question. Thank

[24:47] you. Here you go. Um, with that we'll

[24:49] move on to the applicants presentation.

[25:01] » Press that red handle if you need to

[25:02] adjust the up and down.

[25:04] >> No, this is fine. Can you hear me? Hi,

[25:06] my name is Tom Taylor. Taylor Limbar

[25:09] Architects. Um, I have with me today my

[25:12] our project architect, Fanny Lee, and

[25:15] our landscape architect, Bob Clever.

[25:17] We're here to help answer any questions.

[25:20] Um, we have a few things that that we'd

[25:23] like to show you that that aren't in the

[25:25] package just to get yourself a little

[25:26] bit more familiar with the property. And

[25:29] also, I'd like to also answer a couple

[25:32] other questions uh that were brought up

[25:34] along the way. And then I think that uh

[25:37] after I speak, I'd like to have Bob come

[25:40] up and say a few words about the uh the

[25:42] amount of care that went into the to the

[25:45] siding landscaping of this unbelievably

[25:49] beautiful and private property, you

[25:51] know, that we're we're fortunate enough

[25:54] to be able to work with. But we have a

[25:56] uh sort of a little drone fly through

[25:59] here that we'd like to share with you.

[26:02] And uh why don't we go ahead and get

[26:04] that started? It's a good way to sort of

[26:05] just get an overview.

[26:08] >> Could you give the orientation toward

[26:10] Mountain Home, please, when you get

[26:11] there?

[26:12] >> Okay. So, this is uh our front gate

[26:16] coming in off of a

[26:19] Hooper and come in past the ADU on our

[26:21] left over there. It's nestled into these

[26:23] existing trees. There's a lot of

[26:25] beautiful redwood trees and some big

[26:26] oaks on the property.

[26:29] This is our paddics, our our uh our barn

[26:33] and stables. The ADU is on the right

[26:36] hand side of this building. Sorry, this

[26:38] is moving pretty fast here. Coming down

[26:41] uh sloping down this gentle hill toward

[26:43] the main house. There's a little there's

[26:45] a small parking area in front of the for

[26:48] guests in front of the main house. And

[26:50] then down the hill a little further, we

[26:52] get into the garage for the for the main

[26:54] residence.

[26:59] As we slope down, there is uh we're

[27:02] proposing a new uh arena for the horses

[27:07] working with the existing barn on the

[27:09] property.

[27:14] And there's an existing pond here that

[27:17] we hope to maintain and improve.

[27:22] And then as we go back up toward the

[27:23] main residence, we have existing

[27:25] swimming pool that we're going to

[27:26] maintain, pool house,

[27:30] main residence.

[27:32] And then this is existing koi pond

[27:34] behind the uh the pavilion structure

[27:37] that we want to keep. This is the

[27:38] building that was mentioned that is uh

[27:41] currently 19 ft tall at the ridge that

[27:46] we are going to restore.

[27:49] It's a it's a nice looking building. I I

[27:52] think that it's uh definitely worth

[27:53] preserving.

[27:56] And then we are also going to try to

[27:59] maintain this little this little tower

[28:03] here, this Koopa and and and reuse this

[28:08] existing courtyard

[28:10] uh where that was the front door to the

[28:14] existing house right in front of you

[28:15] there. And now what we want to do is

[28:18] create like a nice little reception area

[28:21] here that is

[28:24] somewhat private from the main house. So

[28:26] there could be some fundraising events

[28:28] and things like that out in this area

[28:30] that wouldn't feel like they're really

[28:32] coming into the main house.

[28:36] And then as you look out toward this uh

[28:40] little meadow and and trees out here,

[28:42] the main house on your left and to the

[28:45] right, you'll see the end of the barn

[28:48] where we have the ADU,

[28:58] the you know the it's an extremely

[29:02] private property and I think that It's

[29:06] let's see if you were asking where Mountain Home Road

[29:12] is in relation

[29:15] on the far upper portion of of where of this view of the property and and

[29:21] then if you go to the right that's uh

[29:24] Blue Oak

[29:26] Blue Ridge sorry Blue Ridge. Yeah. So

[29:29] it's sort of like in between. It's sort

[29:31] of off coming kind of coming off of that

[29:33] corner.

[29:36] the B. So I went all the way down and then clearly

[29:43] there was a lot of

[29:47] » I don't know. Is there anything back

[29:48] there where it's

[29:53] » okay? There's a trail that goes over.

[29:56] >> Yeah.

[29:59] You really can't see Woodside Road.

[30:02] >> Yeah. I was just wondering what Yeah.

[30:07] are popping.

[30:11] » Um, you want to pull up the uh other We

[30:15] have a couple of renderings here that

[30:16] are part of a we're just doing design

[30:18] development for the project to kind of

[30:21] show more information to the owners. Um,

[30:24] it'd been asked about the color of the

[30:26] siding as proposed. It's it's the the

[30:35] it's going to be medium brown in color.

[30:37] It's was no intention that it be white

[30:39] or light and it's no intention for it to

[30:41] be extremely dark. the the the rendering

[30:43] technique, especially with the model.

[30:45] Sometimes it sort of plays around with

[30:47] the colors a little bit, but the

[30:49] intention is that we're using all

[30:51] natural colors or using, you know,

[30:53] natural stone and and medium color of

[30:57] siding and all the windows are dark. Um,

[31:00] so this is the view of the front of the

[31:02] house. Um, the entry is in the in that

[31:05] gable area covered. And then you can see

[31:08] off the right there, that's where it

[31:10] slopes off and and you can get into the

[31:12] garages. Those two big trees on the

[31:14] right, those are existing cyprress trees

[31:16] that were working around.

[31:18] There was so much care that's been put

[31:19] into

[31:21] the relationship of the buildings with

[31:22] the existing trees. The owner is the

[31:26] biggest proponent of that. Doesn't want

[31:27] to lose a single tree basically. And

[31:29] we've we've actually affected very very

[31:32] few uh on the property. And we'll our

[31:38] plan is to enhance the sort of the

[31:40] forest feel of the property and really

[31:43] enhance that and bring in some some more

[31:45] like redwoods and oaks and to be able to

[31:49] make it feel like it's really nestled

[31:50] into the to the trees. And we go to the

[31:55] next one. This is a view looking across

[31:58] the swimming pool toward the main house.

[32:00] The pool house on the right. The pool

[32:02] house is bunkered into the ground so

[32:04] that from the upper area you you know

[32:07] essentially it has a green roof and it's

[32:09] also viewed from the the main level of

[32:11] the house which is from this view is the

[32:14] upper level. You'd be able to look

[32:15] across and see a green roof rather than

[32:18] seeing like a a regular you know roof

[32:22] product out there. The the house is one story on the upper side and two

[32:28] stories on the lower. So it sort of like

[32:30] follows the hillside.

[32:33] What you're seeing on this the upper

[32:34] right there is that's part of what the

[32:37] existing structure that we're

[32:39] maintaining. The pavilion is back there

[32:41] and this sort of foundations for the the

[32:44] pool which used to be a swimming pool

[32:46] many many years ago but has these

[32:48] enormous fish in there now. I don't know

[32:49] if you guys were out there on the

[32:51] property but you know they're these things are really big. They've

[32:55] been there for they've been there for a

[32:56] long time.

[33:00] And then this is the barn. Uh you can

[33:02] see the the paddics on the left uh and

[33:05] the the main house in the background.

[33:08] And this doesn't even do justice to the

[33:10] amount of landscaping that we're

[33:11] proposing here because if we did, you

[33:13] wouldn't be able to see the house. And

[33:14] when you we kind of wanted to see it, so

[33:16] we took a little bit of artistic license

[33:18] there and took a couple of those trees

[33:19] out, but it would actually be very

[33:21] heavily wooded. There's a big redwood

[33:23] tree on the right hand side that doesn't

[33:25] show up in this view, but that's we're

[33:28] creating a little culde-sac around there

[33:30] so that if guests come, they can kind of

[33:32] come around there and drop off and they

[33:34] can walk from either through the barn to

[33:36] the to visit the horses or down a path

[33:39] that takes you into the main house.

[33:46] I wanted to talk a little bit about the

[33:48] uh the height limit issue here. So, this

[33:53] is a pretty good diagram. I think it

[33:56] shows exactly where we're exceeding the

[33:58] 30-foot limit. It is one tiny little tip

[34:01] of one little gable of the living room.

[34:04] And and it's a lo a location that

[34:06] wouldn't be visible from

[34:10] anywhere except for basically a bird's

[34:12] eye view because it actually is that

[34:16] gable is sort of centered on a big oak

[34:18] tree that we're maintaining and the

[34:22] gable itself is more than 100 ft away

[34:24] from the property line. It's just that still doesn't meet your your normal

[34:29] uh guidelines for an exception. And but

[34:32] we think this is the best solution. We

[34:34] know that there's ways to do this roof

[34:36] differently, but I think that they're

[34:38] all I would consider them all uh

[34:41] compromises to the design. And we're

[34:44] hoping that for this tiny little bit of

[34:45] roof that we'd be able to get this

[34:47] approved. If if that's if a variance is

[34:49] what it takes, I think we would probably want to go in that

[34:54] direction because we feel strongly that

[34:55] this is the right right solution.

[35:01] I would like to uh let Bob Glever come

[35:04] up and say a few words about the

[35:06] landscape design.

[35:08] Thank you.

[35:15] Hi, I'm Bob Clever, landscape architect

[35:17] for the project. Uh, I want to thank the

[35:20] committee, the planning staff, everybody

[35:23] that's been involved with the project as

[35:25] well as the owners wanting to make this

[35:28] a forever home for themselves and, you

[35:31] know, use it for the next several

[35:33] decades. Uh, also besides Tom, uh, and

[35:38] Taylor Lombardo, myself, uh, and the

[35:40] owners, uh, DRS, uh, construction has

[35:43] been integral to the team to keeping us,

[35:47] uh, informed on what's there and and

[35:49] doing their the diagnostics for the

[35:52] project. And, uh, you know, back to the

[35:55] owners, this is going to be a a project

[35:58] that they want to use and live in and grow in for decades. though we put a

[36:04] lot of effort into how the project

[36:07] changes from the existing conditions. So

[36:10] I'll I not going to spend a lot of time

[36:11] on architecture. I'll give a little bit

[36:13] more background that maybe starts to

[36:14] fill in on the on the build on the site.

[36:18] We use the existing driveway alignment

[36:21] as much as possible. We eliminated a

[36:24] loop driveway around the original

[36:25] garages, but we kept the driveway where

[36:29] it sweeps in from the end of uh Hooper

[36:32] Lane and then comes in to the property

[36:35] and then bears north and then we stay on

[36:39] the north side of the property towards

[36:41] the the main house. Uh Tom had mentioned

[36:44] that there's a significant redwood and

[36:47] yes, we've made that a focal point and

[36:49] created an access through the center of

[36:51] the redwood through the center of the

[36:53] barn. We then took the center of the

[36:55] barn and the center of the front door of

[36:58] the house and made another axis. that a

[37:01] axis is started from a very large old

[37:05] oak that we hope to uh fortify uh give

[37:10] it whatever hormones are possible to get

[37:13] it to sort of reestablish itself. Um but

[37:17] we're also using a lot of the other site

[37:19] work. the existing uh pond that's down

[37:22] there is uh critical to using it for

[37:25] well not only fire safety but it is

[37:29] currently being used for irrigation and

[37:31] we want to continue that concept if we

[37:33] can. Uh the koi pond was a development

[37:37] from an original pool that got that

[37:40] became that morphed into a koi pond. Uh

[37:43] we inherited the beauty of an incredible

[37:46] mechanical system that has made that quo

[37:48] pond successful as you see it. But

[37:51] there's also the kitchen gardens that

[37:54] are there and the fruit tree area that

[37:55] is back with some of the existing uh

[37:58] green houses and things and sheds that

[38:00] you had seen. Those are are part of the

[38:03] beauty of the property that the owner

[38:06] feels is integral to saving. So we tried

[38:09] to keep as many things that made sense

[38:12] that is existing trees structures uh and

[38:17] the style of the property and then took

[38:20] it and then made it or if you will our

[38:23] own we feel very close to the project.

[38:26] Um but we took the owner's concepts and

[38:28] said okay how do we make this better?

[38:30] developed the existing footprint into a

[38:34] new home that works better for today's

[38:38] living for the owner and for their

[38:39] future. And then then turned the

[38:43] property from a traditional home into a

[38:46] horse development that has the barn, the

[38:49] paddic, a riding ring. Uh took advantage

[38:52] of the abandoned barn that'll probably

[38:54] be some sort of tac shop. Um, and so we

[38:58] really tried to work with things that

[38:59] make sense. I I'll go off and and just

[39:03] one of our thoughts to next further

[39:05] develop it

[39:08] with the concern of the neighbor for the piece of property that

[39:14] is a bonus for the property and it's access but it's it it's not really

[39:20] drivable. Uh our intention is to not use

[39:23] it for access because it goes to Blue

[39:27] Ridge and doesn't do us much good. Um

[39:29] our goal would be to get construction

[39:31] staging to work with existing

[39:34] conditions. Um whether it's using areas

[39:38] like the paddic and maybe the the riding

[39:40] ring for parking and staging and then

[39:44] build from there and use the existing

[39:46] driveway. Um, our intent is to do as

[39:49] much asphalt and keep a lot of the

[39:51] things that are there. Uh, I know that

[39:52] there's gravel coming in at some point.

[39:55] We will work with the fire department to

[39:57] make sure we make that fires safe and accessible. It's not quite right in

[40:02] terms of widths and clearances, but

[40:03] we're going to make that work. Um,

[40:06] the owner, one of the beauties of the

[40:09] property is the existing trees. Um the

[40:13] owner said to us more than once, I don't

[40:15] want to lose a tree and if I lose a tree

[40:17] and if a tree has to go, can we

[40:19] transplant it? We're working with them

[40:20] on that. uh and if we you know there's a

[40:24] lot of existing conditions there that we

[40:26] would like to maintain um pretty much at

[40:29] the owners request um but uh we see this

[40:32] is moving forward to a future and the

[40:36] existing home didn't have a lot of

[40:38] workable things and I think you saw some

[40:40] of the

[40:42] different things that were going on with

[40:44] style uh over the many years that it got

[40:47] renovated and and our look is to make it

[40:49] a fresh start with the main house um

[40:52] impervious surfaces. Uh Sage was

[40:55] absolutely right. We're well beyond the

[40:58] 15,000 ft uh uh allowance, but we have

[41:03] worked with Lean Brace, the civil

[41:05] engineers, and continue to work with

[41:06] them on we have a study now that takes

[41:10] the overage and the 25% you're allowed

[41:15] you lose by going from the overage and

[41:19] we are have a solution that works for

[41:21] the impervious surfaces.

[41:23] um we will continue to work with that

[41:26] and and make sure that we are

[41:29] uh conforming to the you know uh

[41:32] alterations that occur. Um any of us

[41:35] would be happy to take any questions.

[41:39] Thank you for the time.

[41:40] >> Thanks.

[41:42] And if you find that magic formula to

[41:44] fortify that oak, can you share it with

[41:46] me?

[41:47] It it

[41:48] >> we're in a similar situation. it, you

[41:50] know, it it um there are an incredible

[41:54] talented arborist and you know, once you

[41:57] commit to the concept, the

[42:01] feeding and care and protection and

[42:04] potentially maybe a little bit over

[42:06] pruning in order to get the tree to

[42:09] restart. Uh but the development there,

[42:13] we're nowhere near it. uh and the

[42:15] development existing development is uh

[42:18] was trying to pay homage to it, but it really spoke to us and the owner when

[42:22] they said, "Wow, look at that tree." And

[42:23] everybody was like, "Well, could we do

[42:25] something with it?" Well, turns out to

[42:27] be an access from the front door of the

[42:29] house. So,

[42:30] >> good luck.

[42:31] >> Thank you.

[42:31] >> All right. Anyone on the board have

[42:34] questions of uh the architect or

[42:38] landscape

[42:39] >> architect? Just one other than other

[42:42] than the neighbor across the street that

[42:44] was worried about department, it looks

[42:47] like it's not

[42:50] uh all the trucks. Uh did you outreach

[42:52] to the other neighbors?

[42:54] What what sort of outreach?

[42:59] » That's one of our next steps.

[43:01] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Actually, we uh we

[43:04] wanted to to get this in to see if we

[43:07] were on the right track and then we will

[43:10] do what we would consider sort of a

[43:12] traditional neighborhood outreach effort

[43:17] >> and could you speak to the tightness of

[43:19] the wire on the mesh of the fence?

[43:23] >> Excuse me.

[43:25] >> Sorry. Fence wire mesh seems to be

[43:28] really tight which would hinder some

[43:30] passage. Is this accurate as to what

[43:33] your intention is.

[43:34] >> I think that's a Bob question.

[43:37] >> I was gonna ask you before you sat down.

[43:38] Sorry, Bob.

[43:41] >> Question.

[43:43] >> So, it from your experience of the site,

[43:47] there is an existing fence that encloses

[43:49] a certain area and our intention is to

[43:53] extend that a little bit further out

[43:54] with a drive gate that goes a little bit

[43:56] further out. still more well more than

[44:00] 100 ft from the formal corner of the

[44:03] driveway entry. So it but our goal is

[44:07] not only to do I'm going to use this term because I I'm familiar with

[44:11] it. The critter the critter access is

[44:13] still being maintained so that there is

[44:15] a a way of getting access in but uh deer

[44:19] there's a little bit more deer

[44:20] protection than exists now and that's

[44:23] our intention but it's more rural and

[44:25] open everything that we're proposing. Uh

[44:28] and so am I getting close to or did you

[44:32] have a specific really tight and

[44:35] frequently what we're seeing is wire

[44:37] that's a horizontal wire that's a lot

[44:39] more open than a mesh like this. And so

[44:41] I was curious as to I honestly I can't

[44:44] tell you that I've seen the entire

[44:45] perimeter fence to know what's there but

[44:48] u is this a dramatic change from what is

[44:50] there?

[44:51] >> Um no it's a takeoff. So on the north

[44:54] side of the property there's wood post

[44:57] and wire mesh

[45:00] uh very similar to what we were

[45:02] proposing. Um, and we are holding the

[45:05] fence up a foot. Uh, so it's a 5-ft mesh

[45:09] with a sixft fence. So we do get the

[45:12] access under um for for critters. And um

[45:19] the only solid fencing, well there's a a

[45:21] split rail horse style fence for the

[45:23] ring and for the paddic. And then uh

[45:27] there is a uh no real solid fences

[45:32] except for the existing garden and and

[45:34] courtyards that we're trying to preserve

[45:36] cuz again that really spoke to the owner

[45:38] and said, "Wow, you know, how much of

[45:40] this can we keep and still do the

[45:42] improvements that we want to do and get

[45:44] rid of, if you will, the the if you

[45:46] will, the odder garages and guest house

[45:49] that don't really feel quite right for

[45:53] the for our development. So, you know,

[45:55] it but uh the fencing that you saw

[45:59] coming in by the driveway was feels a

[46:03] lot more designed than our concept of no

[46:07] rails, just posts and mesh, which will

[46:09] be I think a lot more transparent than

[46:12] the framed out fencing that is that you

[46:15] see when you first enter the property.

[46:21] » Any other questions for members of the

[46:23] board?

[46:28] Um um actually question for the

[46:31] architect. So I'm I'm curious if you

[46:33] could speak to um the approach because

[46:37] you're preserving existing structures

[46:40] which are largely brick. How that sort

[46:42] of influenced your thinking in terms of

[46:44] the material pallet for the new

[46:46] structures. Um it's always a challenge

[46:49] trying to integrate old and new. So just

[46:51] curious what your sort of high level

[46:53] thinking was around that approach or

[46:55] your approach you settled on.

[46:57] >> Yeah, I I agree. I I think that uh I

[47:02] mean first of all you if you if you've

[47:04] been to the site, you can kind of see

[47:06] how many generations of construction

[47:08] have gone on there. Just even the

[47:10] pavilion itself, there's at least four

[47:12] different vintages of brick in that area

[47:15] there if you look at the walls.

[47:17] So

[47:19] we

[47:20] our idea is to and that's why we're we're finishing the perimeter

[47:25] around there is to treat the pavilion

[47:28] and the area in the brick and the koi

[47:30] pond a little of its it's sort of its

[47:33] own thing to an extent. It's like a

[47:36] little jewel box there that a little

[47:38] piece of history that we think is really

[47:39] pretty and we think that it works

[47:41] functionally well w with how the owners

[47:44] would like to use the house. And then

[47:46] the rest of the project, uh, we're we

[47:48] just sort of felt like we wanted to let

[47:51] it be a little bit more rural, you know,

[47:53] and still just using soft materials and,

[47:56] you know, like a lot of natural

[47:58] materials. And we feel it can work

[48:00] together. I know that there's there's a

[48:03] difference there. We've got a slate roof

[48:05] on one building, we have a metal roof on

[48:07] the other, you know, but we think that

[48:09] we can we can find a way to blend these

[48:11] together. Then also with the use of the

[48:13] landscape, you know, we we plan on, you

[48:17] know, having like a like a nice uh

[48:20] growing, you know, sort of climbing

[48:22] material that that's that's on the the

[48:25] brick structure that sort of like just

[48:27] turns it into to the site in our minds.

[48:33] Yeah, I particularly like the way

[48:34] between the main house and ADU and barn

[48:38] how you change the ratio between stone

[48:40] and wood siding to signal different

[48:44] utilities. So was nice touch. Um okay,

[48:49] any other anyone else question?

[48:54] » Okay. Um so thank you. Um, with that we

[48:57] turn to board uh deliberation for public

[49:01] >> Oh, public comment. Yes, of course.

[49:02] Sorry, Rusty is right.

[49:06] >> We do have one member online now. So,

[49:08] for that person online, if you'd like to

[49:10] make a comment, please use the raise

[49:12] hand feature.

[49:17] » I do not see a raised hand.

[49:22] » Okay. And anyone in the room make a

[49:25] comment? Yep.

[49:28] >> Hi, I'm uh Peter Rose. I live on 8 Blue

[49:32] Ridge Lane right adjacent to this

[49:34] project and so um um it's nice to see

[49:39] the presentation and um I'm glad you

[49:43] asked about neighborhood, you know,

[49:45] outreach to the because I I have not

[49:48] been I didn't know about it until I got

[49:50] the notice from the town. And so, um,

[49:55] uh,

[49:56] I've lived on our place for like 30

[49:58] years. And so, it's interesting to see

[49:59] this whole development coming along. Um,

[50:03] it looks like a nice project. I'm glad

[50:06] to see the driveway, part of the

[50:07] driveway that's closest to my driveway

[50:10] is being removed. And, um, I guess I

[50:14] just I would have some concerns and, you

[50:16] know, hope for landscape. I know they

[50:18] mentioned landscaping to sort of because

[50:20] there's some, you know, views from my

[50:22] house directly into the into like the

[50:24] barn and the ADU. So, I I would hope

[50:28] that that could be addressed as well.

[50:30] Um,

[50:32] so anyway, I look forward to working

[50:35] with the owners and meeting them too. I

[50:38] haven't even met him. So, thank you.

[50:40] Good.

[50:40] >> Thank you.

[50:44] Okay. Anyone? Anyone else from the

[50:46] public?

[50:48] >> No hands online?

[50:50] >> No.

[50:51] >> Good. With that, we'll close public

[50:53] comment. Move to uh board liberation.

[50:57] Like to pick a thought.

[50:59] >> I actually had some more questions for

[51:00] staff.

[51:00] >> Oh, no.

[51:02] >> Member Middleman is taking us backwards

[51:04] on the agenda. So, uh

[51:06] >> go ahead. So the one section of the main

[51:09] house that is over 30 ft, why does that

[51:12] section, if I recall correctly, there's

[51:13] an elevator in there? Why does that not

[51:16] fall under the section of code as a

[51:19] carve out for towers? And

[51:21] >> there's two things we want to look at.

[51:23] There's that little piece of the gable

[51:24] that they were mentioning that's that

[51:26] they were pointing out. There's that

[51:28] taller piece of the building um and I

[51:30] think that's where you're mentioning the

[51:31] elevator is. Yeah,

[51:33] >> that they're showing that from the side

[51:36] elevation to be conforming. Um, it's

[51:38] possible the way the grade is that that

[51:40] could be conforming. We'll need to work

[51:41] with them and look at that a little bit

[51:43] closer with the formal designer view.

[51:45] But the other piece that they're

[51:46] mentioning is just that gable end that's

[51:48] the furthest out kind of towards the

[51:50] pool and the

[51:51] >> which is kind of nonfunctional. It just

[51:53] has that,

[51:53] >> right? It's just part of the extra

[51:55] height there. Yeah.

[51:56] >> And then um looking at the pool house,

[51:58] it has both, you know, a cooking area

[52:01] and a bathroom. Why does it not count as

[52:04] an ADO?

[52:04] >> Um I have to double check. Is it out? Is

[52:07] it exterior access maybe to the

[52:09] bathroom?

[52:09] >> It was an exterior access. Um so it's

[52:12] not a direct connection interior wise,

[52:14] but a person at the pool house would

[52:17] have to walk out of the structure to

[52:19] access the bathroom. But so the only

[52:22] change there would be an interior door

[52:25] to the bathroom and then it would count

[52:26] as an ADU. The outdoor kitchen would

[52:28] still count.

[52:29] >> No. So okay, if it's also an outdoor

[52:31] kitchen, that doesn't count as a

[52:33] kitchen. Um, so we look at those things.

[52:35] Sometimes people are careful. They're

[52:36] looking at septic and they're trying to

[52:39] ensure something doesn't qualify as a

[52:40] bedroom. Um, but if it can be an ADU,

[52:43] we'll be happy to work with the

[52:44] applicant to see if they can convert

[52:46] that into

[52:47] >> My reputation precedes me. Um, the old

[52:50] barn,

[52:51] does it does it now count as an

[52:53] accessory structure? In my head, and

[52:55] then this might be just me, I thought we

[52:57] only allowed one barn per property.

[52:58] >> Uh, no, it's just an accessory

[53:00] structure. And no, there's no limits on

[53:02] barns.

[53:03] >> Okay.

[53:03] >> Um, I mean, you know, we've seen a lot

[53:05] of different things. Uh, sometimes

[53:06] people just have, you know, I've seen

[53:08] people do multiple small shelters

[53:12] um for different animals and some for

[53:14] horses. So there's no limitation on the

[53:16] number just other than their total floor

[53:18] area that's allowed.

[53:19] >> Got it. And then my last question um

[53:21] correct me if I'm wrong that permeable driveways and pavers can help

[53:25] with that aimed area surface coverage.

[53:28] >> Not necessarily. Um so only when people

[53:31] have um like uh uh there's like the

[53:36] grass or there's sometimes this like

[53:38] plastic grid that people will have plant

[53:41] things through that's still drivable. Um

[53:43] when you have those void spaces, we have

[53:45] allowed people to count the void spaces,

[53:48] but there is a thing like permeable

[53:50] concrete which is still solid concrete

[53:52] almost looks like popcorn but so it lets

[53:54] some water go through it but those would

[53:56] just be counted as 100%. So it just

[53:58] depends what the the if they actually

[54:00] have openings

[54:02] um they could decrease they could not

[54:06] count the voided spaces.

[54:08] >> Got it.

[54:09] >> Okay.

[54:11] Thank you for handing my question.

[54:13] >> With that, we will move to board

[54:15] deliberation. So um and I think what

[54:18] would be helpful if you articulate um

[54:22] your position on this project and what

[54:26] you want to commend the applicant for or

[54:28] what you any concerns you may still

[54:30] have. So we're going to start with you

[54:33] Mr. Member Middleman. Is it because I

[54:36] spoke first? You're being penalized for

[54:38] late questions.

[54:40] I think it's a beautiful project. I

[54:42] think the way they intend to update the

[54:46] property is

[54:48] elegant. Um I I definitely enjoy the

[54:51] fact that they're keeping the courtyard

[54:52] and library in place and the history of

[54:54] the courtyard that was shared with me

[54:55] when I visited the property. I deeply

[54:57] appreciate.

[55:00] I think the flow is logical. I it's

[55:04] all works. Um,

[55:07] I think it would be hard for me to find

[55:09] an exception on permeable,

[55:12] you know, on the on the paved areas

[55:15] considering that it we are trying to

[55:17] maintain rural character and we already

[55:19] have plenty of properties that have, you

[55:23] know, gravel driveways and there's

[55:24] plenty of space for compromise there.

[55:28] With regards to the height variances,

[55:31] I think it's an interesting conundrum

[55:33] with the library

[55:35] because it's existing

[55:38] and I I could actually probably support

[55:40] a variance for the library because of

[55:42] the burden of having to reduce the pitch

[55:45] of an existing roof that's perfectly

[55:46] fine by two feet.

[55:49] gable

[55:51] aesthetics on the main house is much

[55:54] harder for me to think about because it

[55:57] does it doesn't seem to be a burden

[56:00] outside of that aesthetic of the gable.

[56:04] So, one of my comments for the applicant

[56:07] would be to go back and try and find a

[56:08] way to remove the variance for the house

[56:10] but keep the variance for the library.

[56:17] Member Sullivan. Uh

[56:19] >> yeah, it's a beautiful project that I

[56:21] think provides an excellent upgrade to

[56:23] the historic use of the property that uh

[56:26] will be very attractive and I didn't

[56:28] have any particular comments beyond what

[56:29] you've already heard today.

[56:33] >> Yep.

[56:35] >> And Del Gabio,

[56:37] >> thank you. It's a beautiful project.

[56:38] Really well done. It's wonder Thank you.

[56:41] Wonderful to hear how much the gardens

[56:43] and uh trees etc that you're trying to

[56:45] keep intact. I would be willing to

[56:48] support the variance on both app both

[56:50] buildings due to the fact that it's so

[56:52] far away from and as long as Mr. Rosen

[56:55] Grants doesn't feel that it's affecting

[56:57] uh his property, his view and his site.

[57:00] Uh I would be willing to support that.

[57:03] And I'm uh also love the idea of the

[57:06] gardens that are more formal traditional

[57:09] gardens that are there. And I'm unclear

[57:11] as to whether that's going to remain and

[57:13] I wish it would.

[57:16] And that's it for me.

[57:17] >> Thank you.

[57:21] » No, it must be an architect's dream. It

[57:24] must be an architect's dream to have

[57:26] this large of a property. And I think

[57:28] you've done a wonderful job in just

[57:31] creating all the spaces and the

[57:34] materials. And I I like the, you know,

[57:36] the cedar wood but with the stone below.

[57:39] And and I think Those are are really

[57:41] nice nice features and it's obviously

[57:44] you guys have taken a lot of thought

[57:46] into how to develop this. Um, a couple

[57:50] of things I I would like although it's

[57:53] not required for this meeting the last

[57:56] but I do think um the screening

[57:59] particularly

[58:01] those side it would be nice to see some

[58:03] plans on what might be

[58:06] to help with that. And I also agree with

[58:10] uh David that I'd like to see maybe a

[58:14] little less asphalt and some gravel on the property just for that rural

[58:19] character. Um but and I I too as long as

[58:24] once you do the neighborhood outreach

[58:26] and I would suggest that you you do that

[58:28] fairly quickly. Um as long as no one has

[58:32] any you know objections to the height. I have um Other

[58:42] than that,

[58:46] it's a beautiful idea. I didn't even

[58:47] know that property exist.

[58:54] » How about you, Don?

[58:56] >> Um, yeah. No, I think everything uh I've

[58:58] heard already spoken I I am supportive

[59:00] of. I think it's an particularly elegant

[59:04] execution of uh trying to preserve and

[59:08] celebrate existing structures at the

[59:10] same time developing an entirely new set

[59:13] of structures with a new pallet. I think

[59:14] it's nicely done. Um

[59:17] I think also acknowledging uh trying to

[59:20] preserve so many existing uh aspects of

[59:24] the property, the existing pool, um the

[59:27] courtyard, the library, all of that is

[59:29] to be commended. Um the goal to minimize

[59:33] the impact on removal of trees or moving

[59:36] of trees um is also to be commended. Um

[59:40] but generally, yeah, I'm very supportive

[59:42] of the project. Um, I know we don't our

[59:45] it's not our charter to deal with

[59:47] exceptions and variances other than than

[59:48] provide a opinion on it, but um I echo

[59:52] member Middleman's comments regarding

[59:55] um the heightened variances on the

[59:58] library and the new structure.

[1:00:01] Um although I feel less passionate about

[1:00:04] impacting the new structure or the tiny

[1:00:07] little portion of it that is causing

[1:00:09] that variance.

[1:00:12] Um, yeah. No, I think it's great.

[1:00:16] Okay. Um, so,

[1:00:22] uh, we'll note that the applicant was

[1:00:24] commended, um, for providing an update

[1:00:27] to the property with some deferred

[1:00:29] maintenance. Uh, the for keeping the

[1:00:32] library in the brick courtyard kind of

[1:00:34] as a homage to the old at the structures

[1:00:37] of the property. Um applicant was also

[1:00:41] commended for the retention of trees and

[1:00:43] transplanting of trees um and the amount

[1:00:46] of landscaping being provided uh as well

[1:00:49] as um what has been said the

[1:00:52] preservation of different features on

[1:00:53] the property for such as the library

[1:00:55] pool and other usable structures. Uh so

[1:00:59] we heard a couple of comments for

[1:01:00] recommendations.

[1:01:02] Um, one is to uh ensure that there is

[1:01:06] adequate screen screening between 8 Blue

[1:01:08] Ridge Lane and the new structures on the

[1:01:11] property. Uh, as well as to provide

[1:01:15] neighborhood outreach um and

[1:01:19] the input from neighbors um and to look

[1:01:23] at the possibility of reducing some of

[1:01:26] the asphalt and providing more gravel in

[1:01:28] place of that asphalt.

[1:01:31] And the one piece here, we had a comment

[1:01:34] regarding kind of the redesign of the

[1:01:36] main house to remove the need for

[1:01:38] variance from uh member Middleman.

[1:01:41] Sullivan concurred um and member Lindsay

[1:01:45] there. I think um and then I'll just add

[1:01:47] that, you know, this would be

[1:01:49] recommendations coming from the ASRB.

[1:01:51] The applicant still needs to be able to

[1:01:53] make the findings for the variance and

[1:01:55] that will be something that's up to the

[1:01:56] planning commission. Uh I think we would

[1:02:00] at the staff level still encourage the

[1:02:02] applicant to try to avoid the need for

[1:02:04] variance. It's just a general thing

[1:02:05] that's good to avoid um with regard to

[1:02:08] the main house in particular uh when

[1:02:10] you're starting with a brand new

[1:02:11] structure. Uh it's something that you

[1:02:14] know trying to find the hardship and why

[1:02:17] uh those findings can be made could be

[1:02:18] difficult. So I think what u I would do

[1:02:21] if it's okay with the board is just kind

[1:02:23] of express there was a little bit of a a

[1:02:25] mixed opinion on that. um and from a

[1:02:27] design perspective um but that the

[1:02:30] applicant should still you know will

[1:02:32] need to pursue and get approval of the

[1:02:34] variance uh if they do want to move

[1:02:35] forward with that.

[1:02:36] >> Yeah. I mean

[1:02:38] >> exactly considering that the conceptual

[1:02:40] view is here to prevent surprises at

[1:02:42] formal

[1:02:43] >> correct you know reading if I were to

[1:02:46] read directly from the code that the

[1:02:47] strict application of this chapter would

[1:02:49] result in practical difficulty or

[1:02:51] unnecessary physical hardship which is

[1:02:54] not of the applicant's own making is

[1:02:56] extremely hard for me to sit here today

[1:03:00] granted for a cable

[1:03:01] >> understood that's something that staff

[1:03:02] looks at as well and that's that's uh so

[1:03:05] but you know it'll be the applicant's

[1:03:06] choice and they'll they move forward. So

[1:03:09] with that, we've received if there's any

[1:03:10] other comments to add. Um, no. And then

[1:03:13] so they did install story polls. Um, so

[1:03:16] the question would be is if this needs

[1:03:18] to come back to the ASRB. Um, if not,

[1:03:21] then it would uh it could be forwarded

[1:03:24] to staff if they redesign everything

[1:03:26] that didn't need any exceptions, but

[1:03:27] they probably will at least for the

[1:03:29] pavilion building. So if it doesn't come

[1:03:31] back to the ASRB, um, it would still go

[1:03:33] to the planning commission for final

[1:03:35] design review. Yep. Yeah. I mean, I

[1:03:37] haven't heard any comments that would

[1:03:39] suggest a need for it to come back to

[1:03:40] ASRB. So, I think we the motion is to

[1:03:43] move directly to formal with staff

[1:03:46] um with all the comments and that's your

[1:03:48] motion expressed. That is my motion.

[1:03:50] Great.

[1:03:51] >> Second that motion.

[1:03:56] » I would like to still possibly I it

[1:03:59] doesn't have to but come back to us, but

[1:04:02] I I would like to see a a screening

[1:04:05] proposal um before just just so I don't

[1:04:09] know the consent item something just to

[1:04:13] take a look and make sure that was taken

[1:04:15] out

[1:04:19] » how could we accommodate that without a

[1:04:22] formal ASRB conception

[1:04:24] >> you know if it's I mean there there was

[1:04:26] some significant landscape plans in

[1:04:28] provided with this packet um so I'm not

[1:04:31] sure how much more they'll show maybe

[1:04:33] they'll add some more landscaping there

[1:04:35] uh between the neighbor. Um so if it

[1:04:38] comes back to the ASRB just for the

[1:04:41] landscaping that would be an item in

[1:04:43] which could do it's been done in the

[1:04:45] past.

[1:04:46] >> Reluctant to make an applicant jump

[1:04:48] through a hoop that's not going to move

[1:04:50] the needle on if the project's approved.

[1:04:56] » So So no change to the motion on that

[1:05:00] >> to the motion. All right. Is there a

[1:05:01] second?

[1:05:04] >> I believe Delgavio seconded.

[1:05:05] >> Second.

[1:05:06] >> Great.

[1:05:06] >> Okay. Uh, Chair Lindseay.

[1:05:08] >> Yes.

[1:05:09] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[1:05:12] >> Member Delgavio.

[1:05:13] >> Yes.

[1:05:14] >> Member Middleman.

[1:05:15] >> Yes.

[1:05:15] >> Member Sullivan.

[1:05:16] >> Yes.

[1:05:19] >> Thank you.

[1:05:20] >> Great. So, we'll be in touch in the next

[1:05:22] day or two with a letter outlining the

[1:05:23] outcome.

[1:05:43] Hey.

[1:05:47] » Um, all right. Moving on to the next

[1:05:49] agenda item. So, uh, 675 men's aid away.

[1:05:58] He goes up again.

[1:05:59] >> Actually, can I can I ask a procedural

[1:06:03] question?

[1:06:04] >> Sure.

[1:06:05] >> The landscape plan is not required in

[1:06:07] the ASRB submittal.

[1:06:09] >> Not with the conceptual designer view,

[1:06:11] >> right?

[1:06:11] >> It is with form.

[1:06:12] >> So,

[1:06:15] all right, never mind.

[1:06:18] Although we have h we have had cases

[1:06:20] where we've requested back with a

[1:06:22] landscape

[1:06:23] >> with yeah we've had sometimes comments

[1:06:25] other comments get addressed at the next

[1:06:27] stage whereas just bringing back the

[1:06:28] landscape plan that's occurred. Yes.

[1:06:36] » And this is the third and final item on

[1:06:38] tonight's agenda. I will be introducing

[1:06:41] the project at 675 Mansin the Way for

[1:06:44] ASRB review. For this conceptual design

[1:06:46] review project, the applicant is

[1:06:49] proposing to demolish an existing single

[1:06:51] family dwelling, uh, three existing

[1:06:53] accessory structures and an existing ADU

[1:06:57] and to construct a new single family

[1:06:59] dwelling, a new detached garage, two new

[1:07:02] uh detached ADUs and associated site

[1:07:05] improvements. and ask for uh item three.

[1:07:09] Uh there are no desk items at this time.

[1:07:16] So to give a bit background on this

[1:07:18] property, uh the property size is 2.72

[1:07:22] acres and is in the RR uh rural

[1:07:25] residential zoning district. Uh the

[1:07:28] basic setbacks for properties in the

[1:07:29] zoning district is also 50 ft minimum

[1:07:32] from all sides. Uh the project site is

[1:07:35] located at the southeastern portion of

[1:07:37] Woodside and is located adjacent to

[1:07:40] Whiskey Hill Road and we are adjacent to

[1:07:42] Sandh Hill Road. Uh there are two

[1:07:44] existing driveways uh one located

[1:07:46] towards the northwestern side and the

[1:07:49] other located at the southwestern ed

[1:07:51] sorry the southeastern edge. Uh the

[1:07:54] topography of the site

[1:07:56] is relatively flat from Manne Way to the

[1:07:59] central portion of the property. Uh as

[1:08:01] you move down uh east uh towards the

[1:08:04] rear uh the slope declines

[1:08:05] significantly. Um and Bear Gulch Creek a

[1:08:09] designated stream and stream corridor in

[1:08:11] Woodside runs along this eastern portion

[1:08:13] of the project site. Uh the subject site

[1:08:16] also includes uh existing vineyards uh

[1:08:18] along the central portion uh between the

[1:08:21] existing main residence and that stream

[1:08:23] corridor. Uh the property includes a 25

[1:08:27] foot wide uh right-of-way easement and a

[1:08:30] 20 foot wide driveway easement uh is

[1:08:33] serving as an e ingress egress path for

[1:08:35] that neighboring property on the north

[1:08:38] uh currently not used by that adjacent

[1:08:40] neighbor um on that northern portion of

[1:08:43] the project site. Um there are also uh a

[1:08:47] 12T wide storm water easement and a 30

[1:08:50] foot wide uh ride ofway easement on that

[1:08:53] southern uh edge uh of the site.

[1:08:57] And

[1:09:00] there are four accessory structures you

[1:09:02] can see in this demolition plan uh along

[1:09:05] the front and rear portions of the

[1:09:07] project site. So there's that one uh

[1:09:10] accessory structure near that stream

[1:09:12] corridor uh along with those three other

[1:09:14] accessory structures

[1:09:17] um ranging from 288 ft to approximately

[1:09:20] 2,14

[1:09:22] square ft structure. Uh that's currently

[1:09:25] being called as an ADU. Um so these four

[1:09:28] structures uh along with that main

[1:09:30] residence uh they're all proposed to be

[1:09:32] removed.

[1:09:36] And you can see uh the existing pictures

[1:09:39] of those uh uh structures at the site

[1:09:42] along with uh the portion of the

[1:09:44] vineyard that's also proposed to be

[1:09:46] removed.

[1:09:51] This is uh a slide of the proposed site

[1:09:53] plan. Uh I provided uh two site plans.

[1:09:57] Uh the right side shows more uh details

[1:10:00] uh showing the extent of that adjusted

[1:10:03] uh driveway. And as noted in the staff

[1:10:05] report, a second driveway exception uh

[1:10:08] may be uh would be required actually

[1:10:11] since uh they are uh proposing to adjust

[1:10:15] uh the second driveway opening uh

[1:10:17] further uh northwest along that man's

[1:10:21] need roadway.

[1:10:23] And as for the uh vineyard as mentioned

[1:10:26] earlier would be um modified and at this

[1:10:29] time they are proposing a septic leech

[1:10:32] fields to be placed in that area of that

[1:10:35] existing vineyard space.

[1:10:40] And so here are the proposed elevations

[1:10:42] uh starting with that main residence. So

[1:10:44] at the top uh shows the proposed front

[1:10:47] elevation and the bottom shows the

[1:10:49] proposed rear elevation for that main

[1:10:51] residence.

[1:10:54] And these are additional elevations for

[1:10:56] that main residence uh with the left

[1:10:58] showing the left elevation and that

[1:11:00] right showing the right elevation.

[1:11:05] These are proposed elevations for that

[1:11:07] detached garage

[1:11:13] and the proposed elevations uh for that

[1:11:15] ADU1

[1:11:19] and proposed elevations for the second

[1:11:21] ADU.

[1:11:25] And so again uh physical materials

[1:11:27] samples are not required at the CDR

[1:11:30] stage. However, the applicant has showed

[1:11:33] uh digital uh samples of the proposed

[1:11:35] materials and uh for all structures

[1:11:38] proposed at the site uh they are

[1:11:40] proposing uh wood sighting uh as well as

[1:11:44] gray uh stone veneer uh and painted uh

[1:11:49] dark colored uh slate roofing.

[1:11:55] The applicant has provided uh additional

[1:11:57] renderings for this uh project.

[1:12:01] So that concludes my presentation. Uh

[1:12:03] staff is happy to answer any questions.

[1:12:05] Uh story pools were also installed at

[1:12:08] the site uh at least 10 days prior to

[1:12:09] the hearing and the applicant is also

[1:12:12] here in attendance to answer any

[1:12:14] questions. Thank you.

[1:12:18] » Does anyone on the board have questions

[1:12:20] of staff?

[1:12:25] question about the amount of trees that

[1:12:27] are to be removed. Could you provide

[1:12:29] some clarity on that?

[1:12:31] >> Sure. Yes. So there are 21 trees uh to

[1:12:33] be removed mainly along that uh western

[1:12:36] uh front portion. Um at this time we

[1:12:40] know that six are sign uh considered

[1:12:42] significant trees. Uh of those six

[1:12:45] significant trees uh two are cited in

[1:12:47] were health

[1:12:56] questions again. The uh black wire mesh

[1:12:59] on the fence once again it seems pretty

[1:13:01] tight and it's tight to the ground. Have

[1:13:02] you made any revisions to that at this

[1:13:04] point for wildlife habitat passing?

[1:13:08] Um I believe the applicant can provide a

[1:13:11] better responses

[1:13:13] get to that

[1:13:19] all the structures are all within the

[1:13:21] height uh limits. There's no exceptions

[1:13:24] to records as expected. No, the yeah, as

[1:13:27] from the information we have so far, it

[1:13:28] doesn't appear that the although this is

[1:13:31] just a it is a technicality when you are

[1:13:33] moving you have two driveways and you're

[1:13:34] moving one of them, it does require the

[1:13:36] second driveway exception. Um, and as we

[1:13:38] know in the staff report, typically

[1:13:40] getting further away from an

[1:13:41] intersection is a good thing. Um, it

[1:13:44] does then move it right across from a

[1:13:45] driveway across the street. Um, so some

[1:13:48] of those things in terms of safety and

[1:13:49] sight distance are things that we get at

[1:13:51] the next stage. Um, and it seems like

[1:13:54] the right thing to do. They could uh uh

[1:13:56] pro we could process a second driveway

[1:13:58] exception.

[1:14:00] >> You anticipated my second question.

[1:14:03] >> Have a question. The lead shield have to

[1:14:04] go beyond

[1:14:08] >> I think they're No, aren't they they I

[1:14:10] think they're a little bit beyond the

[1:14:11] applicants probably best explain it. Um

[1:14:14] but they they there's some area where

[1:14:16] they have to remove some of the vineyard

[1:14:17] to accommodate it and also they have the

[1:14:18] expansion area

[1:14:22] in the area where they're removing the portion where they're removing it

[1:14:25] yet.

[1:14:28] >> And and looking at the lighting, it

[1:14:29] appears that it's not dark sky lighting.

[1:14:31] >> No. So these are it's interesting. Um

[1:14:34] we'll get the full details, but I

[1:14:35] believe these are compliant. Um, when

[1:14:37] you see these glass shields, now that

[1:14:40] you have the small LED bulbs, those are positioned way in the top of the

[1:14:45] housing, which is technically shielded

[1:14:47] where that light source is. So, a lot of

[1:14:49] these old fixtures, you'd see the light

[1:14:51] bulb hanging down. And now, what we're

[1:14:54] seeing is a lot of these light new, more

[1:14:55] modern features have these tiny little

[1:14:57] bulbs up in the top. So, the area of the

[1:14:59] light source is shielded.

[1:15:02] Whatever.

[1:15:03] >> I don't think it's really the case with

[1:15:04] these specific fixtures, but

[1:15:07] >> yeah. Well, so when we just see we just

[1:15:08] get these pictures, we get the

[1:15:09] specifications to the next stage and

[1:15:11] they will have to make sure that the the

[1:15:13] bulbs do not hang down where they kind

[1:15:16] of eye level. You'd see them from the uh

[1:15:18] through the translucent glass.

[1:15:20] >> And is the Benjamin Moore paint color

[1:15:22] that Iron Mountain is that the siding

[1:15:25] paint color versus I don't know what

[1:15:28] Vera Stone is.

[1:15:30] So it looks like the entire majority of

[1:15:32] the building is that Benjamin Moore iron

[1:15:35] stone iron mountain which is pretty dark

[1:15:38] very dark. go back to the um

[1:15:42] so there and this is something the

[1:15:43] applicant can clarify cuz you know the renderings on the front had much

[1:15:48] lighter colored wood and then

[1:15:50] >> what they're showing here is so I think

[1:15:51] what we're seeing is that it is this um

[1:15:54] hickory stain is the actual sign

[1:15:58] Benjamin Moore I'd have to ask the

[1:16:00] applicant to clarify

[1:16:01] >> maybe the

[1:16:01] >> I think that might be yeah I think

[1:16:03] that's just some of the the trim

[1:16:04] painting

[1:16:06] and

[1:16:06] >> actually I got that clarification from

[1:16:08] that applicant. Uh as far as for the um

[1:16:11] uh exterior elevation uh for that wood

[1:16:14] uh sighting detail, uh they're going

[1:16:16] with the uh color shown in this uh

[1:16:18] materials rendering.

[1:16:22] » Thank you.

[1:16:28] » So they won't uh they're not proposing

[1:16:31] the wood color shown in this rendering

[1:16:33] from the title sheet. Uh they're showing

[1:16:35] the um um the wood color shown in this

[1:16:40] one. So it's it will be darker.

[1:16:46] » He's itching to answer us. Move.

[1:16:49] >> Any other questions of staff?

[1:16:54] >> Does the fence uh conform to what's in

[1:16:57] the code for fences?

[1:17:06] Um I can note that they will have to um

[1:17:08] do you have a specific question?

[1:17:10] >> They're really tight basically.

[1:17:13] >> Yeah. I mean we'll ensure I you know I'd

[1:17:14] have to go back off the top of my head.

[1:17:17] Um but uh yeah any of the proposed

[1:17:19] fences

[1:17:19] >> as far as the fencing um a portion of

[1:17:22] the existing fencing uh is existing

[1:17:24] along that rear side and is proposed to

[1:17:26] uh remain uh while that existing fencing

[1:17:29] along the side and front uh which is

[1:17:32] along San Hill Road and along Manzanita

[1:17:34] Way are proposed to be removed and a new

[1:17:37] 6 foot tall uh wooden wire fencing is

[1:17:40] proposed around that perimeter of the

[1:17:42] property uh approximately in that same

[1:17:44] location.

[1:17:46] So yeah, we'll ensure that that it's no

[1:17:48] taller than six feet and it has proper

[1:17:50] setback.

[1:17:50] >> I I guess the question that's come up

[1:17:52] this evening is this tight wire mesh is

[1:17:55] that

[1:17:57] >> so that you know in terms of that we're

[1:17:59] looking at residential design

[1:18:00] guidelines. There's general plan

[1:18:02] policies that encourage wildlife

[1:18:04] passage. Um and so uh definitely there's

[1:18:08] been cases in which people have been

[1:18:10] looked at if there's sufficient wildlife

[1:18:12] passage through the property. Um, and

[1:18:15] sometimes people have asked to kind of,

[1:18:17] you know, raise some portions, sometimes

[1:18:19] lower some portions of fencing to help

[1:18:22] encourage more wildlife passage. So,

[1:18:24] it's not a hard municipal code

[1:18:26] requirement. It's a more of a design

[1:18:28] guidelines and general plan policies for

[1:18:30] the encouragement of wildlife passage.

[1:18:37] Anything else?

[1:18:40] >> Okay. With that, we'll move on to

[1:18:43] presentation from the applicant.

[1:18:47] >> Thank you everybody. Uh my name is Is

[1:18:48] this on?

[1:18:49] >> Uh yes, just you can uh press the red

[1:18:51] handle in front of you under just below

[1:18:53] the mic and I can raise it up a little

[1:18:55] bit.

[1:18:57] >> Okay. My name is Gary Coulat Associates

[1:19:00] Architecture. Um thank you everybody for

[1:19:04] uh all your excellent questions. I think

[1:19:07] uh um it's refreshing to have a board

[1:19:11] that um is concerned but also um ask

[1:19:15] careful uh pertinent questions. So I

[1:19:18] appreciate that talking from someone

[1:19:20] I've been to many many towns and cities

[1:19:23] in the Bay Area. So um it's the first

[1:19:26] time we've been in in Athetherton for

[1:19:27] many years. Um I mean Woods, sorry.

[1:19:30] >> Like you're not here.

[1:19:34] >> Um

[1:19:34] >> we get confused all the Yeah. Uh I hope

[1:19:37] everybody was able to make it out to the

[1:19:39] site and got access onto the property.

[1:19:41] Um it is quite a beautiful property. Um

[1:19:44] it uh especially because the trees are mostly uh located on the perimeter.

[1:19:51] It it's kind of nice that we really

[1:19:53] didn't have to take down too many trees.

[1:19:55] I'll speak on that in a moment. Um

[1:19:58] you've got the creek that circumvents

[1:20:00] the side and the rear. Um and um

[1:20:05] but we do have uh San Hill Road right

[1:20:08] adjacent to us and so that's a a very

[1:20:10] busy road and a lot of noise and and u

[1:20:14] and action there. Um we also we're uh

[1:20:17] have this vineyard that is um it's a dry

[1:20:21] vineyard at this point. It's not

[1:20:23] irrigated. So that's wonderful. It's producing. Um we intended to keep

[1:20:29] as much of this vineyard as possible. We

[1:20:31] are still working with the uh the septic

[1:20:34] design. We finally got our perk rates

[1:20:36] back and we're we're moving along on

[1:20:37] that. Um our intention is not to uh

[1:20:42] interlace these uh leash lines with the

[1:20:44] vineyard if possible. Um we do have an

[1:20:47] area that's cleared for that already. Um

[1:20:52] the um the site I want to speak a little

[1:20:56] bit about the dual access because um we

[1:20:59] were we were um uh very excited to have

[1:21:03] dual access in Woodside um on this

[1:21:06] particular property given the fact that

[1:21:08] it's it's close to the corner. Um

[1:21:11] there's not a lot of uh street parking.

[1:21:13] Uh this the way it functions today is

[1:21:16] the nice loop loop in loop out. you can

[1:21:19] get a lot of cars into that um that

[1:21:21] driveway on site. Um so we wanted to

[1:21:24] maintain that dual access and we worked

[1:21:26] really hard trying to keep the the

[1:21:30] both access points where they are. Uh it

[1:21:33] just really wasn't functioning very

[1:21:35] well. Wasn't very architectural as well.

[1:21:38] And so that's why we're we're proposing

[1:21:41] to move the the first the on the is it

[1:21:45] the you're you're calling it the east

[1:21:47] the south southern one um away from San

[1:21:51] Hill Road. It's just safer to do that.

[1:21:53] Our engineers have looked at that and

[1:21:55] verified that it meets all the

[1:21:57] engineering standards to do that. Um uh

[1:22:00] it just it just really helps our site.

[1:22:03] Um and we really want to maintain it. um

[1:22:07] if we had to uh we would move the move

[1:22:10] it back to the existing, but we're just

[1:22:12] asking to you guys and everybody to uh

[1:22:16] understand why we've done that. It just

[1:22:18] lines up better with our motorc court,

[1:22:20] with our driveways. It doesn't it

[1:22:22] reduces uh impervious coverage as well.

[1:22:26] uh and and impervious coverage. I know

[1:22:29] this came up on the on the previous um

[1:22:32] item. We are also inheriting a property

[1:22:35] with quite a bit more coverage than

[1:22:38] what's allowed. Um and we are uh asking

[1:22:43] for a little bit more than what's

[1:22:44] allowed, quite a bit less than than um

[1:22:48] uh what we could ask for. And certainly

[1:22:51] meeting that 25% reduction. We're

[1:22:54] probably about 60 70% reduction. So, I

[1:22:58] think we're we're we're we're in that

[1:22:59] good spirit of reducing the impervious

[1:23:02] coverage. The home itself uh is a

[1:23:05] two-story home and u we set that back to

[1:23:08] get get the heights that we desired to

[1:23:11] get our our our uh 11 foot ceilings in

[1:23:15] the main floor and and nice ceilings

[1:23:18] upstairs as well. Um the house is

[1:23:20] designed in a we're calling it a

[1:23:23] transitional um you know ranch not ranch

[1:23:27] but um it's a hard to put labels on

[1:23:31] houses these days you know but it it has

[1:23:33] a lot of traditional forms but it's got

[1:23:36] more modern detailing and so we're it's

[1:23:39] a falls into this transitional u uh

[1:23:43] label I suppose. Um the materials are

[1:23:46] all going to be natural. Uh we got the

[1:23:48] cedar, we've got real stone. Um and the

[1:23:52] wood that's uh there was a question

[1:23:53] about the wood. Uh we've got some

[1:23:56] panels, we've got some heavy trim, we've

[1:23:58] got fasciding

[1:24:03] will get a natural stain on it. Um and

[1:24:07] um we think that the combination is very

[1:24:10] uh is very becoming. It's it's it's

[1:24:12] understated. It's elegant. It fits

[1:24:15] Woodside. Um, and it it also fits the

[1:24:18] site very well. And the the the ADUs and

[1:24:23] garage will also be very complimentary

[1:24:25] matching materials. The garage or detach

[1:24:29] garage because it's a detach structure

[1:24:31] has a height limit. Um, and it so we had

[1:24:35] to cheat the the roof pitch a little

[1:24:37] bit. It doesn't match the house quite

[1:24:40] otherwise we'd have to ask for a

[1:24:41] variance. And so we've decided to not do

[1:24:44] that and make the the garage comply with

[1:24:47] the height limit. Um

[1:24:51] what else do I want to talk about? Um

[1:24:54] the it was is staff noted that the um

[1:24:57] our entrance is is not of human scale or

[1:25:02] something like that. Um we we're

[1:25:05] certainly willing to fine-tune this and lower it a little bit. Our thinking

[1:25:10] was when we were doing our our our

[1:25:12] massing is we have two uh gables that

[1:25:16] flank the entry. Those are those main uh feature points. And then um we

[1:25:22] felt that this we kept raising it to

[1:25:24] make it feel better fit the other to to

[1:25:27] fit the scale of the other tube. Um,

[1:25:31] however, um,

[1:25:33] we could see that we could bring it down

[1:25:35] a foot or so and and still still get

[1:25:37] that feel without it looking um too dim.

[1:25:43] So, we want to certainly want to call

[1:25:44] that call that entrance out, but also uh

[1:25:47] be respectful to the overall

[1:25:49] architecture,

[1:25:51] but we're certainly amanable to to work

[1:25:53] with staff on on on getting that down.

[1:25:56] And maybe there's a good compromise

[1:25:58] there.

[1:25:59] >> This is the bridge that you're speaking.

[1:26:01] >> I think they're talking about the entry itself with the arch. Yeah.

[1:26:05] >> Yeah.

[1:26:06] >> Got it.

[1:26:06] >> Right.

[1:26:09] So, um I'm trying to about the fences.

[1:26:14] We've worked on a landscape architect.

[1:26:15] Um he's done several projects in town um

[1:26:19] and he's aware of the uh the uh the

[1:26:24] guidelines versus the rules. And we just

[1:26:26] felt at this point um that you've got

[1:26:30] the creek, you've got a lot of wildlife

[1:26:31] that that has that creek access. We're

[1:26:33] certainly not going to block any of

[1:26:35] that, but with the vineyards to protect

[1:26:38] the swimming pool, all those things, it

[1:26:40] we just felt that that the uh the wire

[1:26:43] fence was was the right thing to do. We

[1:26:47] certainly um can work again with staff

[1:26:50] uh with our owners and um see if there's

[1:26:53] any way we can we can work together on

[1:26:57] this.

[1:27:02] But overall, I think it it it pretty

[1:27:04] much speaks for itself. I do want to say

[1:27:07] I I I certainly can emphasize with with

[1:27:09] uh with the other architect our

[1:27:12] renderings um we use different programs

[1:27:14] that will render different ways um and

[1:27:17] also seeing it on the screen at least on

[1:27:20] the projector screen maybe not on the TV

[1:27:23] it it also renders different and I've

[1:27:26] noticed we noticed that uh the end the

[1:27:29] our cover sheet renders were even

[1:27:32] brighter tonight whereas the our

[1:27:35] elevations were even darker. So, I think

[1:27:37] you're going to find something in the

[1:27:39] middle. Um, and uh and certainly those uh cover sheet renderings were not

[1:27:45] meant to be uh like photo realistic, let

[1:27:49] me put it that way. So,

[1:27:52] but I think you get the idea. It's going

[1:27:54] to be medium brown. What is that? So,

[1:28:04] um, is she any questions? I'd be happy

[1:28:06] to do my best to answer those.

[1:28:08] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, does any member of

[1:28:10] the board have questions? Um,

[1:28:12] >> I have a a quick question. I don't want

[1:28:14] to be on my own. So,

[1:28:18] my house is fit because your kid goes

[1:28:21] crazy. They're good. Um, but on the

[1:28:24] sides of the property between your

[1:28:26] neighbors property, are there wildlife

[1:28:28] corridors? I mean, you're not fenced all

[1:28:30] the way.

[1:28:31] >> We are. To answer your question, there's

[1:28:33] an existing fence on the um, if you're

[1:28:36] looking at the property to the left.

[1:28:38] There's an existing solid wood fence

[1:28:41] there between the two properties.

[1:28:43] Um, there is an existing fence along the

[1:28:46] front. And there's also the existing

[1:28:48] fence that's along Sand Hill, which is

[1:28:50] actually not even on our property. It's

[1:28:53] in the right of way. And so we are

[1:28:56] removing that fence, but it has has been

[1:28:58] working to a certain degree. I I I but I

[1:29:02] think there's still wildlife that that

[1:29:04] probably gets on the property. I I don't

[1:29:06] live there, so I don't know. I I'm just

[1:29:08] thinking between you and your neighbors.

[1:29:10] Um are you going to use that fence

[1:29:13] that's already there or

[1:29:14] >> we our plan is to use that fence and not

[1:29:16] added additional fence to have any

[1:29:19] corridors. Correct.

[1:29:20] >> We're not we're not trying to we think

[1:29:23] that the creek is enough of a corridor.

[1:29:30] » Yeah, that'd be great.

[1:29:37] The property is open on three sides

[1:29:39] essentially with just one neighbor with

[1:29:40] a wood fence.

[1:29:41] >> That's correct.

[1:29:42] >> That's right. Yeah.

[1:29:43] >> There's a lot of access around that

[1:29:45] property.

[1:29:45] >> Mhm.

[1:29:48] >> Right.

[1:29:51] >> Yeah.

[1:29:54] » And and it's interesting the property

[1:29:56] does um extend to the other side of the

[1:29:59] creek from Whiskey Hill. So, there's a

[1:30:02] little section up there that we're not

[1:30:04] planning to do anything. But, um, you

[1:30:07] know, I think we need to be careful not

[1:30:08] to make that like a vacant open site,

[1:30:13] um, for other, you know, for other

[1:30:15] reasons. Um, so we will probably have

[1:30:17] some kind of a security fence up there.

[1:30:20] Um,

[1:30:21] but that's I don't even know if we have

[1:30:23] anything proposed other than what's

[1:30:25] there already. So,

[1:30:27] >> there's an existing white fence there,

[1:30:28] right?

[1:30:29] >> I think there's an existing wild. Yeah.

[1:30:31] So,

[1:30:34] I have to I have to be honest. I I

[1:30:36] haven't spent much time on that little

[1:30:38] piece of the property. Um

[1:30:42] we've been focusing on the on this other

[1:30:44] piece. It's it's it's been a wonderful

[1:30:45] property to to work on and staff's been

[1:30:48] great. So,

[1:30:53] » any other questions?

[1:30:56] I have one as far as the overall pitch

[1:31:00] of that uh gable or arch before the door

[1:31:04] and the pitch of the ex the other two

[1:31:07] elements of the home. If the angle was

[1:31:10] not quite as sharp, wouldn't it feel a

[1:31:12] little softer and not as imposing as

[1:31:15] what it feels? You with me? On the front

[1:31:18] page when I'm looking and seeing,

[1:31:20] >> could we pull the elevations?

[1:31:21] >> This peak, this peak, and this peak, if

[1:31:25] they were flattened out a little bit,

[1:31:27] wouldn't it feel a little less

[1:31:30] >> in your face sort of? Maybe it's just

[1:31:33] plan I'm looking at.

[1:31:34] >> We've we've chosen this particular roof

[1:31:37] pits because it really really works with

[1:31:39] the style quite well and and it's very

[1:31:42] strong. Um I I don't again you're seeing

[1:31:47] this without trees. So we didn't

[1:31:49] superimpose any trees, you know, on

[1:31:52] these elevations. There's a lot of trees

[1:31:55] in the front actually that are existing

[1:31:57] that we're maintaining and that's going

[1:32:00] to go a long way. They're very tall and

[1:32:02] so this house have a little bit of

[1:32:04] height uh is not is not going to stand

[1:32:07] out. And this roof pitch, you can see it

[1:32:10] quite often in town. There's several

[1:32:12] examples of that roof pitch.

[1:32:14] >> It's interesting because when I look at

[1:32:16] that versus looking at this, it doesn't

[1:32:18] seem as severe a point.

[1:32:20] >> Oh, yeah.

[1:32:21] >> Just to add really the the plates on the

[1:32:24] second floor.

[1:32:26] >> Sorry, I'm Jaclyn Green.

[1:32:29] >> Um the plates on the second floor have

[1:32:31] been drastically reduced. So you you're

[1:32:33] seeing standard 8 foot plates on the

[1:32:36] second floor, not 10 or 11 or 12 or what

[1:32:38] people like these days, only eight feet.

[1:32:40] So that is that helps with the severity

[1:32:42] of the height, but it's also going to

[1:32:44] add character to the inside because

[1:32:46] you're going to have vated ceilings

[1:32:47] inside and a lower plate line. And it's

[1:32:49] going to add these cool little nooks and

[1:32:50] crannies on that second floor as you go

[1:32:52] through the bridge to the other

[1:32:53] elements. So we are aware of the

[1:32:56] steepness. That's definitely part of the

[1:32:58] style of the architecture. But in order

[1:33:00] to reduce that overall uh impact, we've

[1:33:04] brought the plate down. The whole second

[1:33:06] floor has that 8ft plate.

[1:33:07] >> Thank you.

[1:33:09] I have a question on this bridge. So

[1:33:12] this this bridge it's all light. So in

[1:33:14] the evening is it going to be I mean it

[1:33:17] be lit up really essentially. It's all

[1:33:20] windows

[1:33:21] >> there. There's a lot of it's a it's a

[1:33:23] lot of windows. Um the um this house is

[1:33:27] going to have shades and most of the

[1:33:30] time these kind of these kind of windows

[1:33:33] you know are going to be drawn in

[1:33:35] nighttime for privacy. So, I don't think

[1:33:38] that you're going to have a lot of light

[1:33:41] uh impact coming out of these of these

[1:33:44] rooms.

[1:33:45] So,

[1:33:50] our idea was to make this more of a

[1:33:52] transparent and light. We tried to

[1:33:54] lighten it up.

[1:33:59] » What's on the back side of that bridge?

[1:34:02] What you're seeing is that's the that's

[1:34:04] the great room ceiling up there and

[1:34:06] that's clad in stone. Has a flat roof.

[1:34:09] So when you walk on that bridge, you can

[1:34:12] see over that roof and out to the

[1:34:14] backyard.

[1:34:16] The whole house is focused on the back

[1:34:18] of the rear, right? The whole

[1:34:20] entertaining and the the pool and the the garden and the vineyards.

[1:34:28] >> Okay.

[1:34:31] Any other questions?

[1:34:35] » Neighbor outreach.

[1:34:38] >> I'm sorry.

[1:34:38] >> Have we had any neighborhood outreach?

[1:34:40] >> We haven't done any outreach yet. So,

[1:34:44] we have had the story pulls up for a

[1:34:45] couple weeks and we haven't heard any

[1:34:47] anything.

[1:34:48] >> Yeah.

[1:34:54] I think with going to two stories, your

[1:34:56] decision to push the house uh a little

[1:34:58] bit further away from men's and either

[1:34:59] way is a good decision to offset that

[1:35:02] height a little bit.

[1:35:04] >> How far is it from?

[1:35:06] >> It's

[1:35:08] the existing house is right on the

[1:35:10] setback.

[1:35:12] >> Oh, another

[1:35:13] >> 20 70 something.

[1:35:15] >> 70. Yeah. And also going up adding some

[1:35:18] rooms upstairs um reduces our overall

[1:35:21] footprint.

[1:35:23] as well. We we started on one story and

[1:35:26] we cl you know we we were starting to go

[1:35:29] you know exceed the uh the the

[1:35:31] coverages. So this helps to concentrate

[1:35:35] it.

[1:35:38] Okay.

[1:35:39] Anybody else?

[1:35:45] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:35:46] Um without uh public

[1:35:49] comment, anyone online?

[1:35:52] >> There's no one online.

[1:35:54] >> No one online. No one I see no one in

[1:35:56] the room.

[1:35:57] >> So uh we will skip public comment or

[1:36:00] open and close it immediately. Uh and

[1:36:03] move to board deliberation.

[1:36:07] >> Okay. You need Okay, we're going to take

[1:36:11] five minutes

[1:36:12] >> break.

[1:36:15] >> 60 seconds.

[1:36:20] » Thank those knee replacements. Pretty

[1:36:23] simple.

[1:36:47] Yep.

[1:36:56] You're all making it easy on us. It's

[1:36:58] only 610.

[1:37:01] » The last The last meeting you had was in

[1:37:03] January.

[1:37:05] >> Was it really

[1:37:06] >> January?

[1:37:12] So, yes, we're a little rusty tonight.

[1:37:16] Developed a clear obsession around

[1:37:17] fences for some reason. I'm not sure

[1:37:18] where that's coming from, but

[1:37:26] you can see the desire for security with

[1:37:28] sand hill.

[1:37:58] Okay. Uh, resuming. So, uh, board

[1:38:01] deliberation. I'll kick it off tonight.

[1:38:04] Um, yeah, I think I was hardressed to

[1:38:08] put a label on style as well. So, but I

[1:38:11] commend your efforts to integrate the

[1:38:14] gables, stone, standing seam, metal

[1:38:16] roof, flat roof. So, it I think it works

[1:38:20] as a design. Um, I do have one

[1:38:24] reservation. I'll echo Vice Chair

[1:38:26] Commer's comments about the bridge and

[1:38:28] the amount of glazing. Um, we often with

[1:38:31] homes that are on hillsides projecting

[1:38:33] outwards, we often are very concerned

[1:38:35] about light projection. Um I think there

[1:38:37] is some I I hold some reservations here

[1:38:40] about just projection of light. We don't

[1:38:42] want to we're hardressed to to accept uh

[1:38:47] shades or blinds as a solution in this

[1:38:50] case. Um so that's one area where I do

[1:38:54] have some concerns about this especially

[1:38:57] given that's facing away. Um,

[1:39:01] but beyond that, I think overall, I

[1:39:03] mean, it's a I think it's a good a good

[1:39:06] approach to the design. Um, yeah, that's pretty much sums it up

[1:39:12] for me.

[1:39:16] » Well, one thing we've asked for in the

[1:39:18] past has been, could the windows on that

[1:39:21] backside be a glazing that is

[1:39:24] non-reflective?

[1:39:26] >> Yeah. And so something that come to my

[1:39:28] mind when I hear the comments is we

[1:39:30] actually just completed up a formal

[1:39:31] design review with staff in which the

[1:39:33] conceptual design review came to ASRB

[1:39:35] and it had a fair amount of glazing on

[1:39:37] the front of the building and uh one of

[1:39:39] the solutions for that project was to do

[1:39:41] what's called this low E glass. It's

[1:39:43] like low emission glass. So it helps to

[1:39:45] reduce the amount of light emission. Um

[1:39:48] and so that's something that ASRB could

[1:39:50] consider.

[1:39:53] Could we require shades to be a part of

[1:39:55] the

[1:39:57] >> I you would just caution on that just

[1:39:59] because you know the enforcement from

[1:40:02] the town on something like that is just

[1:40:04] not realistic.

[1:40:07] » Yeah. The property developed below me uh

[1:40:10] the plan was for this photochromatic

[1:40:13] glass and they never implemented

[1:40:16] >> even low E. Isn't that what we require

[1:40:17] all the time pretty much? Uh there's

[1:40:20] well there's low energy requirements but

[1:40:23] this is something that's for light

[1:40:24] emission in particular. Uh tell the

[1:40:27] story that it's it sometimes called

[1:40:29] turtle glass uh given that a lot of

[1:40:32] large homes on the Florida coast were um

[1:40:36] providing a lot of glazing and it was

[1:40:38] creating problems for the turtles laying

[1:40:40] their eggs on the beach at night. Um,

[1:40:43] and so this was many years ago and a lot

[1:40:45] of this glass technology kind of came

[1:40:48] from that. Um, and trying to reduce the

[1:40:50] light emission in particular.

[1:40:54] >> I don't think we can require it, but is

[1:40:56] this something that we can look into as

[1:40:58] being part of an objective standard?

[1:41:00] >> Yes, definitely. In terms of like the

[1:41:02] amount of glazing, I think it's

[1:41:03] something that um,

[1:41:04] >> even the materials used like low E

[1:41:06] glass,

[1:41:07] >> right? Yeah, you low e glass could be

[1:41:09] something to be looked at as well as the

[1:41:10] amount of glazing percentages of walls,

[1:41:12] things like that could be built into

[1:41:14] objective standards.

[1:41:18] » Anyone else?

[1:41:25] » Liberation.

[1:41:27] >> I I'm curious. Are are they looking for

[1:41:30] a high?

[1:41:32] >> Uh it is no not for this. Um I mean

[1:41:35] we'll we'll get more information at

[1:41:37] formal design review stage to verify

[1:41:38] that. So I just always want that caveat.

[1:41:40] But um at the way it's shown now it does

[1:41:43] not appear that it would need any type

[1:41:44] of height exception.

[1:41:47] >> It didn't appear to have any exceptions.

[1:41:48] Right.

[1:41:49] >> It's just this moving of the driveway

[1:41:51] which is the second driveway except

[1:41:53] >> I can totally support that. I mean they

[1:41:55] already have the second access, right?

[1:41:58] So they're just trying to move it to be

[1:42:00] better situated. It would be a different

[1:42:02] conversation if they were asking for a

[1:42:04] second drive and they only had one

[1:42:05] currently.

[1:42:12] Anyone else like to summarize their

[1:42:14] thoughts and

[1:42:17] position on this?

[1:42:18] >> Yeah, I I I think it's a really nice

[1:42:20] project that really makes excellent use

[1:42:21] of the site and I didn't have any

[1:42:23] questions or concerns. I do know that

[1:42:25] often we talk about large glass uh

[1:42:27] penetration being a concern about

[1:42:29] flooding the neighborhood to a light,

[1:42:31] but I have looked as I've driven around

[1:42:33] Woodside, the newer glass products do a

[1:42:36] lot to reduce emission. And I rarely

[1:42:40] drive through Woodside and go, "Oh, wow.

[1:42:42] There's a lot of light coming from that

[1:42:43] big glass house." But I see a lot of

[1:42:46] people with non-standard

[1:42:48] uh light fixtures that put out enormous

[1:42:51] amounts of light. That probably is where

[1:42:53] we need to be as cautious as anything

[1:42:55] and avoiding, you know, a lot of

[1:42:56] uplighting, only doing down lighting and

[1:42:58] some of the existing policies that are

[1:43:00] trying to deal with that. But I thought

[1:43:02] that design was great and would be a

[1:43:05] wonderful improvement to the property.

[1:43:11] » Yeah, I kind of echo that. I mean, I had

[1:43:13] no issues with the pitch or the bridge.

[1:43:15] You know, it all fits with what we

[1:43:18] currently allow in in Woodside. I think

[1:43:21] it's a great update. I think like I

[1:43:23] said, moving the driveway makes sense to

[1:43:25] align it with the motor court. Like if

[1:43:27] you were starting fresh, that's exactly

[1:43:29] where I'd put it.

[1:43:30] >> Yeah, I don't really have any issues.

[1:43:35] I would I would support moving to formal

[1:43:37] staff.

[1:43:38] >> Great. Thank you.

[1:43:41] >> Hey, Sage.

[1:43:42] >> Yes. Great. Okay. So I've heard uh so

[1:43:45] the ASRB commended the applicant uh for

[1:43:48] the design and materials of the building

[1:43:51] um with the one somewhat concerned is

[1:43:54] looking at the glazing at the bridge um

[1:43:57] facing mansita in particular uh and

[1:44:00] talked about possibility of implementing

[1:44:02] some low e low light emission glass for

[1:44:05] the project. Um, and other than that,

[1:44:09] uh, their applicant commended for the

[1:44:12] applicant for looking at the driveway

[1:44:13] and the new location. Uh, and I'll just

[1:44:17] add the caveat so long as it is, uh,

[1:44:20] shown to be safe uh, through their

[1:44:22] project engineer and verified by the

[1:44:24] town engineering department. Um, but

[1:44:27] with that, I heard one comment about

[1:44:29] forwarding this to staff for formal

[1:44:31] design review. um if they still needed

[1:44:34] the second driveway exception and it

[1:44:36] didn't have to come back to ASRB, it

[1:44:37] would just go straight to the planning

[1:44:38] commission and they would act on the

[1:44:40] design and the second driveway

[1:44:42] exception.

[1:44:44] >> Okay. Do we have a motion?

[1:44:48] >> I'd make the motion that it go straight

[1:44:50] to the planning commission based on

[1:44:51] those facts and that they would consider

[1:44:53] the lighting plan somewhere along the

[1:44:56] line.

[1:44:57] >> I'll second that.

[1:45:00] >> Chair Lindsay. Yes,

[1:45:02] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[1:45:03] >> Yes.

[1:45:04] >> Member Deaggavio.

[1:45:05] >> Yes.

[1:45:05] >> Member Middleman.

[1:45:06] >> Yes.

[1:45:07] >> Member Sullivan.

[1:45:08] >> Yes.

[1:45:10] >> Thank you.

[1:45:11] very much.

[1:45:12] >> Thank you so much.

[1:45:16] » And I apologize. Who second? Who do

[1:45:19] this?

[1:45:19] >> Second.

[1:45:20] >> Done. Thank you.

[1:45:22] >> Yep.

[1:45:27] I always thought it was made notes on

[1:45:30] that.

[1:45:31] >> We all do just temple.

[1:45:33] >> I would defer to Julia.

[1:45:36] >> Okay. We have three director's reports.

[1:45:39] >> Yes. And I

[1:45:40] >> thank you very much.

[1:45:41] >> It's a beautiful view.

[1:45:42] >> Um what I what I'm going to do is just

[1:45:44] primarily focus on March because that

[1:45:45] has I think what we now now mainly talk

[1:45:48] about is looking at the number of units.

[1:45:50] Um so the uh the I think the second page

[1:45:54] here has these um kind of different

[1:45:57] graphs and it shows

[1:46:00] that in January we didn't issue permits

[1:46:03] for any new units. Um it's possible that really comes out of just being

[1:46:09] after the holidays. Um and you know for

[1:46:13] whatever reason it's still kind of the

[1:46:14] middle of winter and people just at that

[1:46:17] particular time didn't have permits

[1:46:19] ready. Um February they noted that we

[1:46:22] issued three permits for ADUs and one

[1:46:23] for a single family dwelling. And then

[1:46:26] in March we had six ADUs, one of them

[1:46:29] being a Jadu and one new single family

[1:46:32] dwelling. And April is over. I just have

[1:46:34] not run that report. I'll probably do

[1:46:35] that tomorrow.

[1:46:38] » Um other than that, we continue to be

[1:46:40] busy and I know we have had um kind of

[1:46:43] this gap in time. We have had a lot of

[1:46:45] applications come in um in the last uh

[1:46:49] few months and um our team is full

[1:46:51] again. Um one of our planners was out

[1:46:53] for about eight months but she's back

[1:46:56] now and so be great to help kind of move

[1:46:58] some more of the stuff along.

[1:47:00] >> Good get to talk much.

[1:47:04] >> So is there do you see a trend now with

[1:47:06] like new construction? I mean there's

[1:47:09] clearly a lot more ADUs getting built at

[1:47:11] this

[1:47:11] >> Definitely a lot more ADUs for sure. Um,

[1:47:13] and no, I you know, I think part of it

[1:47:15] is is ADUs have kind of been

[1:47:18] demystified. You know, I think, you

[1:47:20] know, there's been just not just from

[1:47:21] the town's perspective, but just all

[1:47:23] over the state, a lot more focus and

[1:47:25] people understand what they are, um,

[1:47:27] understand that they can be attainable.

[1:47:29] I you know and something that we promote

[1:47:31] and are continuing to find ways to

[1:47:33] promote more is that the town has signed

[1:47:38] up as part of um this county ADU

[1:47:42] resource center. Um so they also provide

[1:47:45] other types of things that can help

[1:47:47] people with looking at budgets or they

[1:47:50] have different designs that you know we

[1:47:52] always tell people to double check with

[1:47:53] the town and make sure these designs uh

[1:47:55] can fit within our parameters but most

[1:47:58] of them do. Um, so there's other

[1:48:00] resources that we are continuing to

[1:48:02] promote and finding other ways to

[1:48:04] promote better as well as we're

[1:48:06] continuing to work on uh ADU standards.

[1:48:09] Um, we went to the planning commission

[1:48:11] in

[1:48:12] um, uh, March, I guess getting confused

[1:48:16] at I'm sorry, is April. Um, with uh,

[1:48:18] some additional changes to ADU standards

[1:48:20] to try to provide more flexibility. uh

[1:48:23] they had a few comments and we're hoping

[1:48:25] to bring that back to them on May 20th

[1:48:28] before it goes to the town council. So

[1:48:30] just again continuing to work on ways to

[1:48:33] provide more flexibility for use.

[1:48:35] >> I know that we passed I think we were

[1:48:38] required to do it by the state but that

[1:48:40] we were have

[1:48:43] pre-approved

[1:48:46] ADU.

[1:48:47] >> Yeah. So there's a you know essentially

[1:48:49] the we have we'll just follow the state

[1:48:52] law for that. There's a process for

[1:48:53] that. No one has applied for that. Um so

[1:48:56] as an architect or a prefab company they

[1:49:00] could come into the town and say we'd

[1:49:02] like for you to just look at our

[1:49:03] building itself. It won't be a

[1:49:05] foundation or actual site review but

[1:49:08] does it meet the height and the size

[1:49:09] which are basically the two criteria. Um

[1:49:12] and so they could do someone could you

[1:49:14] know any company could apply for that be

[1:49:17] reviewed by the town to ensure that it's

[1:49:19] okay and then from there um they would

[1:49:22] have then we would post that on our

[1:49:23] website directly. So the question of the

[1:49:26] question was would this board be

[1:49:29] involved in any way with that review or

[1:49:30] >> no these are just things that do they

[1:49:32] meet code um and so uh and so it's just

[1:49:36] based up

[1:49:36] >> it's a guideline aspect of

[1:49:39] >> to the extent of yes I mean they have to

[1:49:41] meet the objective criteria for the ADUs

[1:49:44] um and so uh this ADU resource center

[1:49:48] they have a lot of people have gone

[1:49:50] through them and had that posted online

[1:49:52] um you know for example If one ADU had a

[1:49:55] 20ft plate height limit, that just

[1:49:57] wouldn't meet our code requirement.

[1:49:59] >> But with regards to like colors or, you

[1:50:02] know, facades, the only way that this

[1:50:04] board could have any input on what those

[1:50:06] are is through

[1:50:08] the generation of objective standards.

[1:50:11] >> That's correct. If there were some

[1:50:12] objective design standards would

[1:50:13] definitely involve the ASRB,

[1:50:15] >> which leads into the other question I

[1:50:16] had. you know, we've had fencing, color,

[1:50:19] and lighting come up regularly when

[1:50:22] we're viewing,

[1:50:23] >> you know, project after project. And

[1:50:25] we've also had a very large gap. And

[1:50:28] maybe I'm going to put my foot in my

[1:50:29] mouth and say that it's been a light

[1:50:30] year.

[1:50:32] >> Um, but

[1:50:34] yeah, would it be in this board's

[1:50:36] perview to have a study session on those

[1:50:38] three topics and and then maybe come up

[1:50:40] with some suggestions for a future

[1:50:42] objective standard?

[1:50:44] >> Uh, yes. If the town is to engage in

[1:50:46] that process, we'd definitely in involve

[1:50:48] the ASRB in that

[1:50:50] >> stage at this point. If people are, we

[1:50:52] know people are building ADUs, they

[1:50:55] don't have to come by our

[1:50:57] >> That's correct. They go straight to the

[1:50:58] building permit.

[1:50:59] >> Yeah.

[1:50:59] >> And are they somewhere that we'd be able

[1:51:01] to look up and see that? Like I've got

[1:51:03] one popping up on my street and I'm

[1:51:05] like, "Oh, I wonder what it's going to

[1:51:06] look like."

[1:51:07] >> Sure. Yeah. So, uh, the plans are all

[1:51:09] public record. Um, so we can't give

[1:51:11] copies of them out without the

[1:51:13] architect's permission. Um, but they're

[1:51:15] always available at town. Um, so you can

[1:51:18] we have open counter hours Monday

[1:51:20] through Thursday in the mornings. Um,

[1:51:22] that's one way I always encourage people

[1:51:23] to just maybe set up an appointment with

[1:51:25] somebody. Um, and they can sometimes do

[1:51:27] that after the counter hours as well.

[1:51:29] Uh, so that's just so you ensure someone

[1:51:31] will be there and easily be able to

[1:51:33] >> So that's not online anywhere to look

[1:51:34] at.

[1:51:34] >> No, it's just because we because then

[1:51:36] people can make copies of it.

[1:51:37] >> Oh, I see. Got So that's why those

[1:51:39] particular plans are just viewable at

[1:51:41] town hall.

[1:51:42] >> Thanks.

[1:51:44] >> I see people now instead of

[1:51:49] they're doing sort of mobile homes

[1:51:54] with

[1:51:56] >> Is that

[1:51:58] >> um it's not in Woodside. Um it's

[1:52:00] something that you know there's you know

[1:52:02] the tiny homes and even mobile homes in

[1:52:05] general um those are not permitted in

[1:52:09] Woodside in terms of being able for

[1:52:11] someone to live in. Um you can store a

[1:52:14] mobile home on your property but the

[1:52:16] main issue is um

[1:52:20] uh safety. Um are they connected to

[1:52:23] septic systems? Are the septic systems

[1:52:25] evaluated for that? Um they're not on a

[1:52:28] foundation. we have a lot of

[1:52:30] geotechnical issues in the town of

[1:52:31] Woodside. Um, and so that's the primary

[1:52:35] reason is that they're not a fixed to a

[1:52:37] foundation. Uh, and so that any any

[1:52:40] habitable living unit needs to comply

[1:52:43] with those standards

[1:52:46] at least for Woodside. I I can't speak

[1:52:48] to other jurisdictions and how things

[1:52:49] are.

[1:52:49] >> People that are doing it.

[1:52:57] » Okay. that I will adjourn at whatever

[1:53:00] that is 6:24

[1:53:04] 3

[1:53:06] >> done.

[1:53:07] >> Thanks.

[1:53:07] >> Thank you.

[1:53:08] We're back.

Architectural and Site Review Board Regular Meeting - May 4, 2026

Transcript