So, um, calling to order
ASRB meeting for Monday, May the 4th. U,
feels like it's been ages since the last
one.
It has.
So, we we might be a little rusty
tonight. Um, can I can I have a roll
call, please?
>> Chair Lindsay,
>> present.
>> Vice Chair Comra,
>> member Doug Aio, member Middleman,
>> present,
>> and member Sullivan
» Summer.
Yeah,
» there we go. Okay, just a reminder to
anyone in the public who's attending
tonight in person, if you could remember
to sign in on our sign-in sheet at the
entrance, uh on the way in or on the way
out. Either way is good. Um do we have
any changes to the agenda tonight?
>> There are no changes to the agenda. Um
there is one desk item for the project
at 578 Mountain Home Road and that will
be discussed during that presentation.
Okay.
Um at this point we call for any member
of the public who wishes to make a
comment on any topic not on tonight's
agenda. You're welcome to do so now.
And if you're online, you could uh raise
your hand.
» There's no one online. No one on um I
don't see anyone in the room standing up
rushing to the microphone.
Um so we'll close the public
communications and I don't believe
there's anything on the consent agenda.
>> Uh there is there's just the minutes of
January 12th.
>> Okay. Does any member of the board or
the public wish to pull that topic for
disc further discussion? Otherwise,
we'll just pass everything on the
consent agenda with one motion.
No.
» Okay.
>> Second motion.
>> I second the motion. Great.
>> Thanks,
>> Chair Lindseay.
>> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Comra.
>> Member Delgavio.
>> Yes.
>> Member Middleman.
>> Yes.
>> Member Sullivan.
>> Yes. Great. Thanks. Um so the first
actually first topic on tonight's agenda
I believe is the reelection of the chair
and vice chair roles. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. So um every two years
per the charter um there is a change in
chair and vice chair. So um in terms of
the process and if I mess anything up
Julie will correct me.
>> Um
>> I'll correct you.
>> Thank you. um that uh you'll have a
motion, you'll have it, you'll take
nominations uh I believe for the chair
first um and then uh if there's um only
one nomine you'll vote on those nominees
uh and then the person with the most
votes will become chair and then you'll
do the same for vice chair. You'll take
nominations
um and then uh vote for those
nominations. And just to clarify the
regulation um
this puts a learn a term limit
effectively on the roles uh in an effort
to rotate u committee members through
the positions. Um if can the chair serve
as vice chair at the end of that two
years and can
>> um elevated top your head
» doesn't explicitly state that you cannot
um but because of the two-year
>> I think we'd have to look at the
calendar there's a chance that if you
went back to vice chair and then went
for chair again that you may not be able
to but we need to look at that further I
think
>> it's a loosely defined regulation.
>> It's I my understanding is you can you
can be chair for no more than two years
within a 4-year period
>> and the same goes for vice chair
>> believe. So I have a question. Can can
we make a motion that
the chair stays on for the next year?
>> Um it's something I can look into with
the town attorney. If that's where the
board wants to go and just has a
consensus on that, then I'd want to
check with the town attorney's office
and we probably bring that back at the
next meeting.
>> I would like to do that. I know done a
great job and seems to have an interest.
>> Just a reminder to speak in the mic.
>> Oh, seems to have an interest in
remaining as chair. And if it just means
postponing that for one more time, I'm
okay if we want to look into it.
>> I would look to the rest of the board.
Um that
>> I'd be fine if he wants to stay
» just like for consistency first.
>> Oh, I think he's asking a question
because he wants to stay or he wouldn't
have.
>> Um so so yeah and then just make sure
microphone's on. Um R Sullivan,
>> do we have that option right now
considering the way the code is? I mean,
at this point, I would continuing for an
one more meeting is not a significant
issue. So, I was just we'd be
tableabling the item. I wouldn't be
taking that action. If that's where the
board wants to go, then I would have to
consult with the town manager, town
attorney's office to see if that's a
path that could be taken.
>> See if I can summarize right. The debate
is if we're going to motion to table
the nomination of chair and vice chair
for a meeting in order for one cycle in
order to get a proper answer on if
uh the chair and or vice chair can
extend their terms.
>> That's correct.
>> I I personally am not because I only
have one more year. I'm not going to so
this would just be for the chair not for
the chair and the vice chair. So we
would be getting another person on the
committee in that position.
>> Well, I I do think that we should do
both nominations together,
>> right? Correct. No, that that's what
Yeah, that's what we would do. We would
table both nominations and then and they
would still, you know, those votes would
still have to occur.
» So, you're looking for a motion to
continue?
>> Um, I think the direction is fine. We'll just um continue that to the next
meeting.
>> Second. You need a vote on that?
>> Um, sure. Let's do a vote. So, it's it's
clear that it's a unanimous decision.
>> Chair Lindseay.
>> Uh, sure.
>> Vice Chair Comra.
>> Yes.
>> Member Delgavio.
>> Yes.
>> Member Middleman.
>> Yes.
>> Member Sullivan.
>> Yes.
» Okay. Take that up next meeting. So, uh,
first item on the agenda tonight is, um,
I believe we're, which order are we
doing? doing uh 578 Mountain Rome Road
first. Yes.
>> Yep.
>> Okay, great.
» KGO's giving all the presentations
tonight.
>> That's correct.
» Hello and thank you. I will be
introducing the project at 578 Mountain
Home Road for architectural and site
review board review. For this conceptual
design review project, the applicant is
proposing to demolish three existing
accessory structures and a single family
dwelling and to construct a new single
family dwelling, a new barn with an
interior ADU, a new detached ADU, a new
detached pool house, a conversion of the
remaining portion of the existing single
family dwelling into a detached
structure with a new addition and
associated site improve. improvements.
And so there is one desk item uh for
this project for you all today. Um if
you flip to page two of that desk item,
uh it kind of sheds light into what the
adjacent neighbor is um uh has concerns
about. Uh the adjacent neighbor to the
northeast of the project site noted uh
that they have no issues with the
project itself, but rather concerns of
uh future construction staging and
traffic. uh the neighbor utilizes the
public rightway easement to access their
property uh which I will be talking more
about in the next slide and that they
are requesting that the easement area is
not used for parking and storage during
construction. Uh during the next stage
of design review and during the building
permit stages, uh staff will have an
opportunity to look closer at these uh
preliminary uh construction and or uh
staging and traffic plans and ensure
that the neighbors concern uh in this
desk item are addressed.
So moving on to the property
description,
uh the project site is 12.6 6 acres and
it is in the SCP5 zoning district. Uh
the basic setbacks for properties in the
zoning district is 50 ft minimum from
all sides. Uh this subject site is
accessed through Hooper Lane, a private
uh culde-sac street serving 550 through
598 Mountain Home Road properties. Uh
the ex existing driveway begins at the
end of Hooper Lane and extends southwest
towards the uh single family dwelling.
Uh, as I mentioned before, a near narrow
strip of land on the northeastern uh
portion of the site is a ride-of-way
easement for the driveway of that
neighboring property. Uh, that driveway
uh begins from Blue Ridge Lane and is
nonaccessible to that uh to this project
site. Um, and so the topography of the
site uh slopes gently from the east uh
down to the central portion of the
property. Uh the slope then declines
significantly uh towards the western uh
rear portion of the project site. The
rear portion is uh heavily wooded and
undeveloped. Uh the property includes a
uh one 100 ft wide conservation easement
on this western portion of the project
site as well as a 15t wide equestrian
easement along the western portion of
the project site as well as a 15t wide
uh sorry a 10-ft wide easement for
electric utilities uh through through
that center portion of the site. And so
there are uh existing solar panels
adjacent to that equestrian easement
along the western edge. Um at this time
there's no details uh about those uh
existing solar panels.
And so these are some of the existing
pictures of the existing structures that
are not supposed to be demolished uh at
this time. Um and so this includes uh
the equipment barn uh at the rear uh
portion of the site uh the utility
bunker as well as those ancillary
structures uh adjacent to the existing
garden area.
And so this plan sheet here shows the
proposed demolition plan. Uh this
includes uh the maintenance garage, uh
the garage and the guest house which are
proposed to be fully demolished. uh as
well as uh the majority of the main
residents uh except for the uh
library/pavilion
uh structure which I will get to in a
little bit. Uh and uh also um some
hardscaping around the main residence.
And this is um additional pictures of
those structures that are supposed to be
removed. Uh and on the left you can see
the existing guest house photos. Uh the
existing maintenance garage photos in
this column. Uh the existing garage
photos in this column. And on the very
right is the existing photos of that
main residence.
And so this is the proposed site plan
which shows the extent of where the main
residence will be located. Uh the
footprint of the main residence will be
shifted slightly uh further uh west.
uh and also shows the locations of that
uh detached ADU pool house and pavilion
structure.
And so these are the elevation plan
sheets starting with the main residence.
Um, as noted in the staff report, uh,
the applicant at this time is, uh,
proposing a structure of the main
residence, um, that has portions that
are greater than 30 ft in height. Uh,
and at this time, uh, staff is
recommending, uh, as noted in the staff
report that the applicant reduce their
height uh, for a variance uh, for
variance not to be required uh, during
the formal design review stage. would
which would have to be reviewed by the
planning commission.
And so these are the other um post
elevation. Uh this is for the south and
north.
And these are the proposed elevations
for that newborn with an interior ADU.
This is the proposed elevations uh for
that new ADU.
and the proposed elevations for the new
pool house.
This is the proposed elevation for the
pavilion and also noted in the staff
report uh a variance would be required
for this uh detached pavilion. Uh this
currently this pavilion is part of that
main residence. But uh once the main
residence um is shifted away from this
pavilion structure, this detached
pavilion would actually have to be
meeting um basic height limitations for
uh accessory structures, not for uh so
in this case uh since this pavilion
structure exceeds that 17 ft uh basic
height allowed for accessory structures,
a variance would be required.
Um at this time it's uh a variance to
height.
Oh uh it's showing uh
» it's 19 ft. It's about 19 feet.
And these are the proposed elevations uh
for that court courtyard. And as noted
in the staff report, uh the majority of
this courtyard is existing. And uh they
are looking to do um uh some minor
improvements uh throughout this exterior
uh walls of this courtyard area and also
restoring this uh coupa.
And uh at this time uh there are no
physical material samples uh and this is
not a requirement for the conceptual
design review stage. Uh however they uh
presented uh digital samples of the
those materials uh including for that
main house poolhouse/barn
and for the ADU which includes wood
siding uh stone veneer for the wall and
uh dark metal roof metal roof. And for
that library pavilion and courtyard, uh
they're proposing uh bricks as exterior
materials and uh copper gutters and uh
steel windows.
And the applicant has also provided
additional renderings.
And that concludes my presentation. Uh
staff is happy to answer any questions.
Uh story pools were installed at the
site at least 10 days before the hearing
date and the applicant is also here in
attendance to answer any questions.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um does anyone on the board
have questions of staff?
>> There's one question. Why would it be a
height variances versus a height
exception?
So for
it the exception
to height variance would require uh
specific findings um for that main
residence which at this time they cannot
meet and that includes um the 100 foot
minimum setbacks required uh for the
entirety of that main residence
structure. So at this time they don't
meet that uh requirement. So uh if they
wish to pursue uh a variance to height
uh they can go through the uh standard
variance process uh during the formal
design review stage.
>> Thank you.
» It says
the the main thing with the detached
structures is just what's inside of
them. And so if it has a full bathroom
and a kitchen and then either just an
open room like a studio apartment or a
separate bedroom, that would qualify as
an ADU. Whereas you might have a pool
house that doesn't have a kitchen in it.
And so if it doesn't have those three
components for eating, sleeping, and
bathing, um, then it's not considered an
ADU.
And so they sometimes call it a pool
house. They may call a guest house or
something like that. Just not
technically an ADU.
>> It's
>> so Yeah. So detached structures other
than barns can be up to,500 square feet
regardless of the use as long as the use
is permitted.
I wanted to clarify the exterior uh
surface of the barn, not of the barn of
the ADU and the other buildings. Some of
the renderings and I understand their
renderings look like it's light in
finish and then some some of the others
look like it's all very dark.
>> Do we know?
>> It's a good question. So, we reached out
to the applicant and hopefully they can
answer that question tonight.
answer that.
>> It's a good question. So, uh they are
already over their maximum allowable
paved area. And so, in the code, um if
you are swapping more than 250 square
ft, which they would be doing here,
meaning they're taking some away from
this part of the property and adding
more to that part of the property. There
is a code requirement in which I always
try to struggle to explain this but you
have to you you have to reduce the
amount that you exceed the maximum by
25%.
So whatever you exceed over what you're
allowed you have to reduce that number
by 25%.
Um so if you are over
uh you know by 20,000 square feet you
have to reduce that overage by
>> so so heavy
>> 4,000. Yes, they've show they've shown
some preliminary plans. There are some
uh things we need some clarifications on
for the formal design review stage. Um
but it looks like they can probably
accomplish that.
» Good. Any other questions?
um
height exceptions or variances on
existing structures. Um is there an
amount of structural change that needs
to happen before that's triggered or
>> So th this is the case with this
particular proposal is that you have a
portion of a building that is part of a
main residence. Main residences can be
up to 30 feet tall. And so this portion
of the main residence is around 19 ft
tall. That is conforming. it conforms to
the existing standards for main
residence. Now that they're going to
demolish the main residence and make
this a detached building, it would
create a nonconforming situation because
it was um over the 17 ft tall. So if if
it was just already existing
nonconforming,
no variance would would be required. I
mean, it's already a detached building
that's over the 17 ft tall and that was
built a long time ago and that's okay.
But because it's creating that situation
in which it was a conforming height,
this would now need a variance to allow
it to remain there. And given you have
an existing structure, sometimes that
will be weighed in. Um, we'll look
closer at the demo plan. You know, if
they're demoing most of the building,
does it make sense? Um, but if they're
just demoing a portion of it to do the
little addition for the bathrooms, um,
that's something that could be looked
at.
>> Oh, actually, my question. So, the 19 ft
is the current roof height.
>> That's correct.
It's not historic.
>> We are we have initiated a historical
review through the town's historian. So
that will be part of what we have with
the formal design review. Um I don't
believe so at this time, but we'll get
that report.
» Great. Any other questions?
>> They also have those.
>> That's correct. So they they for the
barn, they've gone through the livestock
committee um for the conceptual review.
they've raised some questions and
they'll come back to answer those
questions at the formal design review
stage.
>> And do all those questions need to be
resolved before formal?
>> Um depending on what level of detail it
is. Um sometimes you get into things
like ventilation and you know that maybe
comes more at the building permit stage.
Um so uh we'll look at their questions
and see how they can be answered and
what things maybe just get conditioned
for the building permit stage. Are there
parts of the municipal code that
specifically talk about ADUs and barns
in the same structure?
>> Yes. Um, so that was actually that's
something that's been in the code for a
while. It was probably like cycle 4 or
something of the housing element back in
like the 2000s area. Um, so that was
done uh yeah well over 20 years ago. So
barns have been allowed in ADUs for some
time now. We've made some adjustments
given state laws and things like that
>> and the most recent adjustment allows
for up to two ADUs in a barn. Correct.
>> Uh yeah, I mean we the there's a change
in which barns can be fully converted to
ADUs. And so that was looking at, you
know, if someone wanted to convert that
barn into two ADUs, they could do that.
Um then if you're just building a new
barn with an attached ADU, there's
regulations for that proposal. And can a
barn support a Jedu? Uh, no. Jadus are
to be within main residences. Right.
Good.
>> And what was the overall lot coverage?
>> Yeah.
Okay, sorry. Um, so we that's something
that we still need that level of detail.
It's not required for conceptual review
maybe confusion with the other
application. Um, but they do they have
to provide that for formal design
review. Um, it's just not required at
this stage.
>> Okay.
Any last questions of staff?
>> One more reminder of what the ADU code
is.
>> So you're allowed two ADUs
attached or detached. You can have a
third if you have a J AU. Correct.
>> Um you can have three ADUs attached or
detached and on a property of this size
>> without a J AU.
and then you could also
have the J AU.
>> Okay. I missed it. Thank you.
I think that's it for question. Thank
you. Here you go. Um, with that we'll
move on to the applicants presentation.
» Press that red handle if you need to
adjust the up and down.
>> No, this is fine. Can you hear me? Hi,
my name is Tom Taylor. Taylor Limbar
Architects. Um, I have with me today my
our project architect, Fanny Lee, and
our landscape architect, Bob Clever.
We're here to help answer any questions.
Um, we have a few things that that we'd
like to show you that that aren't in the
package just to get yourself a little
bit more familiar with the property. And
also, I'd like to also answer a couple
other questions uh that were brought up
along the way. And then I think that uh
after I speak, I'd like to have Bob come
up and say a few words about the uh the
amount of care that went into the to the
siding landscaping of this unbelievably
beautiful and private property, you
know, that we're we're fortunate enough
to be able to work with. But we have a
uh sort of a little drone fly through
here that we'd like to share with you.
And uh why don't we go ahead and get
that started? It's a good way to sort of
just get an overview.
>> Could you give the orientation toward
Mountain Home, please, when you get
there?
>> Okay. So, this is uh our front gate
coming in off of a
Hooper and come in past the ADU on our
left over there. It's nestled into these
existing trees. There's a lot of
beautiful redwood trees and some big
oaks on the property.
This is our paddics, our our uh our barn
and stables. The ADU is on the right
hand side of this building. Sorry, this
is moving pretty fast here. Coming down
uh sloping down this gentle hill toward
the main house. There's a little there's
a small parking area in front of the for
guests in front of the main house. And
then down the hill a little further, we
get into the garage for the for the main
residence.
As we slope down, there is uh we're
proposing a new uh arena for the horses
working with the existing barn on the
property.
And there's an existing pond here that
we hope to maintain and improve.
And then as we go back up toward the
main residence, we have existing
swimming pool that we're going to
maintain, pool house,
main residence.
And then this is existing koi pond
behind the uh the pavilion structure
that we want to keep. This is the
building that was mentioned that is uh
currently 19 ft tall at the ridge that
we are going to restore.
It's a it's a nice looking building. I I
think that it's uh definitely worth
preserving.
And then we are also going to try to
maintain this little this little tower
here, this Koopa and and and reuse this
existing courtyard
uh where that was the front door to the
existing house right in front of you
there. And now what we want to do is
create like a nice little reception area
here that is
somewhat private from the main house. So
there could be some fundraising events
and things like that out in this area
that wouldn't feel like they're really
coming into the main house.
And then as you look out toward this uh
little meadow and and trees out here,
the main house on your left and to the
right, you'll see the end of the barn
where we have the ADU,
the you know the it's an extremely
private property and I think that It's
let's see if you were asking where Mountain Home Road
is in relation
on the far upper portion of of where of this view of the property and and
then if you go to the right that's uh
Blue Oak
Blue Ridge sorry Blue Ridge. Yeah. So
it's sort of like in between. It's sort
of off coming kind of coming off of that
corner.
the B. So I went all the way down and then clearly
there was a lot of
» I don't know. Is there anything back
there where it's
» okay? There's a trail that goes over.
>> Yeah.
You really can't see Woodside Road.
>> Yeah. I was just wondering what Yeah.
are popping.
» Um, you want to pull up the uh other We
have a couple of renderings here that
are part of a we're just doing design
development for the project to kind of
show more information to the owners. Um,
it'd been asked about the color of the
siding as proposed. It's it's the the
it's going to be medium brown in color.
It's was no intention that it be white
or light and it's no intention for it to
be extremely dark. the the the rendering
technique, especially with the model.
Sometimes it sort of plays around with
the colors a little bit, but the
intention is that we're using all
natural colors or using, you know,
natural stone and and medium color of
siding and all the windows are dark. Um,
so this is the view of the front of the
house. Um, the entry is in the in that
gable area covered. And then you can see
off the right there, that's where it
slopes off and and you can get into the
garages. Those two big trees on the
right, those are existing cyprress trees
that were working around.
There was so much care that's been put
into
the relationship of the buildings with
the existing trees. The owner is the
biggest proponent of that. Doesn't want
to lose a single tree basically. And
we've we've actually affected very very
few uh on the property. And we'll our
plan is to enhance the sort of the
forest feel of the property and really
enhance that and bring in some some more
like redwoods and oaks and to be able to
make it feel like it's really nestled
into the to the trees. And we go to the
next one. This is a view looking across
the swimming pool toward the main house.
The pool house on the right. The pool
house is bunkered into the ground so
that from the upper area you you know
essentially it has a green roof and it's
also viewed from the the main level of
the house which is from this view is the
upper level. You'd be able to look
across and see a green roof rather than
seeing like a a regular you know roof
product out there. The the house is one story on the upper side and two
stories on the lower. So it sort of like
follows the hillside.
What you're seeing on this the upper
right there is that's part of what the
existing structure that we're
maintaining. The pavilion is back there
and this sort of foundations for the the
pool which used to be a swimming pool
many many years ago but has these
enormous fish in there now. I don't know
if you guys were out there on the
property but you know they're these things are really big. They've
been there for they've been there for a
long time.
And then this is the barn. Uh you can
see the the paddics on the left uh and
the the main house in the background.
And this doesn't even do justice to the
amount of landscaping that we're
proposing here because if we did, you
wouldn't be able to see the house. And
when you we kind of wanted to see it, so
we took a little bit of artistic license
there and took a couple of those trees
out, but it would actually be very
heavily wooded. There's a big redwood
tree on the right hand side that doesn't
show up in this view, but that's we're
creating a little culde-sac around there
so that if guests come, they can kind of
come around there and drop off and they
can walk from either through the barn to
the to visit the horses or down a path
that takes you into the main house.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the
uh the height limit issue here. So, this
is a pretty good diagram. I think it
shows exactly where we're exceeding the
30-foot limit. It is one tiny little tip
of one little gable of the living room.
And and it's a lo a location that
wouldn't be visible from
anywhere except for basically a bird's
eye view because it actually is that
gable is sort of centered on a big oak
tree that we're maintaining and the
gable itself is more than 100 ft away
from the property line. It's just that still doesn't meet your your normal
uh guidelines for an exception. And but
we think this is the best solution. We
know that there's ways to do this roof
differently, but I think that they're
all I would consider them all uh
compromises to the design. And we're
hoping that for this tiny little bit of
roof that we'd be able to get this
approved. If if that's if a variance is
what it takes, I think we would probably want to go in that
direction because we feel strongly that
this is the right right solution.
I would like to uh let Bob Glever come
up and say a few words about the
landscape design.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Bob Clever, landscape architect
for the project. Uh, I want to thank the
committee, the planning staff, everybody
that's been involved with the project as
well as the owners wanting to make this
a forever home for themselves and, you
know, use it for the next several
decades. Uh, also besides Tom, uh, and
Taylor Lombardo, myself, uh, and the
owners, uh, DRS, uh, construction has
been integral to the team to keeping us,
uh, informed on what's there and and
doing their the diagnostics for the
project. And, uh, you know, back to the
owners, this is going to be a a project
that they want to use and live in and grow in for decades. though we put a
lot of effort into how the project
changes from the existing conditions. So
I'll I not going to spend a lot of time
on architecture. I'll give a little bit
more background that maybe starts to
fill in on the on the build on the site.
We use the existing driveway alignment
as much as possible. We eliminated a
loop driveway around the original
garages, but we kept the driveway where
it sweeps in from the end of uh Hooper
Lane and then comes in to the property
and then bears north and then we stay on
the north side of the property towards
the the main house. Uh Tom had mentioned
that there's a significant redwood and
yes, we've made that a focal point and
created an access through the center of
the redwood through the center of the
barn. We then took the center of the
barn and the center of the front door of
the house and made another axis. that a
axis is started from a very large old
oak that we hope to uh fortify uh give
it whatever hormones are possible to get
it to sort of reestablish itself. Um but
we're also using a lot of the other site
work. the existing uh pond that's down
there is uh critical to using it for
well not only fire safety but it is
currently being used for irrigation and
we want to continue that concept if we
can. Uh the koi pond was a development
from an original pool that got that
became that morphed into a koi pond. Uh
we inherited the beauty of an incredible
mechanical system that has made that quo
pond successful as you see it. But
there's also the kitchen gardens that
are there and the fruit tree area that
is back with some of the existing uh
green houses and things and sheds that
you had seen. Those are are part of the
beauty of the property that the owner
feels is integral to saving. So we tried
to keep as many things that made sense
that is existing trees structures uh and
the style of the property and then took
it and then made it or if you will our
own we feel very close to the project.
Um but we took the owner's concepts and
said okay how do we make this better?
developed the existing footprint into a
new home that works better for today's
living for the owner and for their
future. And then then turned the
property from a traditional home into a
horse development that has the barn, the
paddic, a riding ring. Uh took advantage
of the abandoned barn that'll probably
be some sort of tac shop. Um, and so we
really tried to work with things that
make sense. I I'll go off and and just
one of our thoughts to next further
develop it
with the concern of the neighbor for the piece of property that
is a bonus for the property and it's access but it's it it's not really
drivable. Uh our intention is to not use
it for access because it goes to Blue
Ridge and doesn't do us much good. Um
our goal would be to get construction
staging to work with existing
conditions. Um whether it's using areas
like the paddic and maybe the the riding
ring for parking and staging and then
build from there and use the existing
driveway. Um, our intent is to do as
much asphalt and keep a lot of the
things that are there. Uh, I know that
there's gravel coming in at some point.
We will work with the fire department to
make sure we make that fires safe and accessible. It's not quite right in
terms of widths and clearances, but
we're going to make that work. Um,
the owner, one of the beauties of the
property is the existing trees. Um the
owner said to us more than once, I don't
want to lose a tree and if I lose a tree
and if a tree has to go, can we
transplant it? We're working with them
on that. uh and if we you know there's a
lot of existing conditions there that we
would like to maintain um pretty much at
the owners request um but uh we see this
is moving forward to a future and the
existing home didn't have a lot of
workable things and I think you saw some
of the
different things that were going on with
style uh over the many years that it got
renovated and and our look is to make it
a fresh start with the main house um
impervious surfaces. Uh Sage was
absolutely right. We're well beyond the
15,000 ft uh uh allowance, but we have
worked with Lean Brace, the civil
engineers, and continue to work with
them on we have a study now that takes
the overage and the 25% you're allowed
you lose by going from the overage and
we are have a solution that works for
the impervious surfaces.
um we will continue to work with that
and and make sure that we are
uh conforming to the you know uh
alterations that occur. Um any of us
would be happy to take any questions.
Thank you for the time.
>> Thanks.
And if you find that magic formula to
fortify that oak, can you share it with
me?
It it
>> we're in a similar situation. it, you
know, it it um there are an incredible
talented arborist and you know, once you
commit to the concept, the
feeding and care and protection and
potentially maybe a little bit over
pruning in order to get the tree to
restart. Uh but the development there,
we're nowhere near it. uh and the
development existing development is uh
was trying to pay homage to it, but it really spoke to us and the owner when
they said, "Wow, look at that tree." And
everybody was like, "Well, could we do
something with it?" Well, turns out to
be an access from the front door of the
house. So,
>> good luck.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Anyone on the board have
questions of uh the architect or
landscape
>> architect? Just one other than other
than the neighbor across the street that
was worried about department, it looks
like it's not
uh all the trucks. Uh did you outreach
to the other neighbors?
What what sort of outreach?
» That's one of our next steps.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Actually, we uh we
wanted to to get this in to see if we
were on the right track and then we will
do what we would consider sort of a
traditional neighborhood outreach effort
>> and could you speak to the tightness of
the wire on the mesh of the fence?
>> Excuse me.
>> Sorry. Fence wire mesh seems to be
really tight which would hinder some
passage. Is this accurate as to what
your intention is.
>> I think that's a Bob question.
>> I was gonna ask you before you sat down.
Sorry, Bob.
>> Question.
>> So, it from your experience of the site,
there is an existing fence that encloses
a certain area and our intention is to
extend that a little bit further out
with a drive gate that goes a little bit
further out. still more well more than
100 ft from the formal corner of the
driveway entry. So it but our goal is
not only to do I'm going to use this term because I I'm familiar with
it. The critter the critter access is
still being maintained so that there is
a a way of getting access in but uh deer
there's a little bit more deer
protection than exists now and that's
our intention but it's more rural and
open everything that we're proposing. Uh
and so am I getting close to or did you
have a specific really tight and
frequently what we're seeing is wire
that's a horizontal wire that's a lot
more open than a mesh like this. And so
I was curious as to I honestly I can't
tell you that I've seen the entire
perimeter fence to know what's there but
u is this a dramatic change from what is
there?
>> Um no it's a takeoff. So on the north
side of the property there's wood post
and wire mesh
uh very similar to what we were
proposing. Um, and we are holding the
fence up a foot. Uh, so it's a 5-ft mesh
with a sixft fence. So we do get the
access under um for for critters. And um
the only solid fencing, well there's a a
split rail horse style fence for the
ring and for the paddic. And then uh
there is a uh no real solid fences
except for the existing garden and and
courtyards that we're trying to preserve
cuz again that really spoke to the owner
and said, "Wow, you know, how much of
this can we keep and still do the
improvements that we want to do and get
rid of, if you will, the the if you
will, the odder garages and guest house
that don't really feel quite right for
the for our development. So, you know,
it but uh the fencing that you saw
coming in by the driveway was feels a
lot more designed than our concept of no
rails, just posts and mesh, which will
be I think a lot more transparent than
the framed out fencing that is that you
see when you first enter the property.
» Any other questions for members of the
board?
Um um actually question for the
architect. So I'm I'm curious if you
could speak to um the approach because
you're preserving existing structures
which are largely brick. How that sort
of influenced your thinking in terms of
the material pallet for the new
structures. Um it's always a challenge
trying to integrate old and new. So just
curious what your sort of high level
thinking was around that approach or
your approach you settled on.
>> Yeah, I I agree. I I think that uh I
mean first of all you if you if you've
been to the site, you can kind of see
how many generations of construction
have gone on there. Just even the
pavilion itself, there's at least four
different vintages of brick in that area
there if you look at the walls.
So
we
our idea is to and that's why we're we're finishing the perimeter
around there is to treat the pavilion
and the area in the brick and the koi
pond a little of its it's sort of its
own thing to an extent. It's like a
little jewel box there that a little
piece of history that we think is really
pretty and we think that it works
functionally well w with how the owners
would like to use the house. And then
the rest of the project, uh, we're we
just sort of felt like we wanted to let
it be a little bit more rural, you know,
and still just using soft materials and,
you know, like a lot of natural
materials. And we feel it can work
together. I know that there's there's a
difference there. We've got a slate roof
on one building, we have a metal roof on
the other, you know, but we think that
we can we can find a way to blend these
together. Then also with the use of the
landscape, you know, we we plan on, you
know, having like a like a nice uh
growing, you know, sort of climbing
material that that's that's on the the
brick structure that sort of like just
turns it into to the site in our minds.
Yeah, I particularly like the way
between the main house and ADU and barn
how you change the ratio between stone
and wood siding to signal different
utilities. So was nice touch. Um okay,
any other anyone else question?
» Okay. Um so thank you. Um, with that we
turn to board uh deliberation for public
>> Oh, public comment. Yes, of course.
Sorry, Rusty is right.
>> We do have one member online now. So,
for that person online, if you'd like to
make a comment, please use the raise
hand feature.
» I do not see a raised hand.
» Okay. And anyone in the room make a
comment? Yep.
>> Hi, I'm uh Peter Rose. I live on 8 Blue
Ridge Lane right adjacent to this
project and so um um it's nice to see
the presentation and um I'm glad you
asked about neighborhood, you know,
outreach to the because I I have not
been I didn't know about it until I got
the notice from the town. And so, um,
uh,
I've lived on our place for like 30
years. And so, it's interesting to see
this whole development coming along. Um,
it looks like a nice project. I'm glad
to see the driveway, part of the
driveway that's closest to my driveway
is being removed. And, um, I guess I
just I would have some concerns and, you
know, hope for landscape. I know they
mentioned landscaping to sort of because
there's some, you know, views from my
house directly into the into like the
barn and the ADU. So, I I would hope
that that could be addressed as well.
Um,
so anyway, I look forward to working
with the owners and meeting them too. I
haven't even met him. So, thank you.
Good.
>> Thank you.
Okay. Anyone? Anyone else from the
public?
>> No hands online?
>> No.
>> Good. With that, we'll close public
comment. Move to uh board liberation.
Like to pick a thought.
>> I actually had some more questions for
staff.
>> Oh, no.
>> Member Middleman is taking us backwards
on the agenda. So, uh
>> go ahead. So the one section of the main
house that is over 30 ft, why does that
section, if I recall correctly, there's
an elevator in there? Why does that not
fall under the section of code as a
carve out for towers? And
>> there's two things we want to look at.
There's that little piece of the gable
that they were mentioning that's that
they were pointing out. There's that
taller piece of the building um and I
think that's where you're mentioning the
elevator is. Yeah,
>> that they're showing that from the side
elevation to be conforming. Um, it's
possible the way the grade is that that
could be conforming. We'll need to work
with them and look at that a little bit
closer with the formal designer view.
But the other piece that they're
mentioning is just that gable end that's
the furthest out kind of towards the
pool and the
>> which is kind of nonfunctional. It just
has that,
>> right? It's just part of the extra
height there. Yeah.
>> And then um looking at the pool house,
it has both, you know, a cooking area
and a bathroom. Why does it not count as
an ADO?
>> Um I have to double check. Is it out? Is
it exterior access maybe to the
bathroom?
>> It was an exterior access. Um so it's
not a direct connection interior wise,
but a person at the pool house would
have to walk out of the structure to
access the bathroom. But so the only
change there would be an interior door
to the bathroom and then it would count
as an ADU. The outdoor kitchen would
still count.
>> No. So okay, if it's also an outdoor
kitchen, that doesn't count as a
kitchen. Um, so we look at those things.
Sometimes people are careful. They're
looking at septic and they're trying to
ensure something doesn't qualify as a
bedroom. Um, but if it can be an ADU,
we'll be happy to work with the
applicant to see if they can convert
that into
>> My reputation precedes me. Um, the old
barn,
does it does it now count as an
accessory structure? In my head, and
then this might be just me, I thought we
only allowed one barn per property.
>> Uh, no, it's just an accessory
structure. And no, there's no limits on
barns.
>> Okay.
>> Um, I mean, you know, we've seen a lot
of different things. Uh, sometimes
people just have, you know, I've seen
people do multiple small shelters
um for different animals and some for
horses. So there's no limitation on the
number just other than their total floor
area that's allowed.
>> Got it. And then my last question um
correct me if I'm wrong that permeable driveways and pavers can help
with that aimed area surface coverage.
>> Not necessarily. Um so only when people
have um like uh uh there's like the
grass or there's sometimes this like
plastic grid that people will have plant
things through that's still drivable. Um
when you have those void spaces, we have
allowed people to count the void spaces,
but there is a thing like permeable
concrete which is still solid concrete
almost looks like popcorn but so it lets
some water go through it but those would
just be counted as 100%. So it just
depends what the the if they actually
have openings
um they could decrease they could not
count the voided spaces.
>> Got it.
>> Okay.
Thank you for handing my question.
>> With that, we will move to board
deliberation. So um and I think what
would be helpful if you articulate um
your position on this project and what
you want to commend the applicant for or
what you any concerns you may still
have. So we're going to start with you
Mr. Member Middleman. Is it because I
spoke first? You're being penalized for
late questions.
I think it's a beautiful project. I
think the way they intend to update the
property is
elegant. Um I I definitely enjoy the
fact that they're keeping the courtyard
and library in place and the history of
the courtyard that was shared with me
when I visited the property. I deeply
appreciate.
I think the flow is logical. I it's
all works. Um,
I think it would be hard for me to find
an exception on permeable,
you know, on the on the paved areas
considering that it we are trying to
maintain rural character and we already
have plenty of properties that have, you
know, gravel driveways and there's
plenty of space for compromise there.
With regards to the height variances,
I think it's an interesting conundrum
with the library
because it's existing
and I I could actually probably support
a variance for the library because of
the burden of having to reduce the pitch
of an existing roof that's perfectly
fine by two feet.
gable
aesthetics on the main house is much
harder for me to think about because it
does it doesn't seem to be a burden
outside of that aesthetic of the gable.
So, one of my comments for the applicant
would be to go back and try and find a
way to remove the variance for the house
but keep the variance for the library.
Member Sullivan. Uh
>> yeah, it's a beautiful project that I
think provides an excellent upgrade to
the historic use of the property that uh
will be very attractive and I didn't
have any particular comments beyond what
you've already heard today.
>> Yep.
>> And Del Gabio,
>> thank you. It's a beautiful project.
Really well done. It's wonder Thank you.
Wonderful to hear how much the gardens
and uh trees etc that you're trying to
keep intact. I would be willing to
support the variance on both app both
buildings due to the fact that it's so
far away from and as long as Mr. Rosen
Grants doesn't feel that it's affecting
uh his property, his view and his site.
Uh I would be willing to support that.
And I'm uh also love the idea of the
gardens that are more formal traditional
gardens that are there. And I'm unclear
as to whether that's going to remain and
I wish it would.
And that's it for me.
>> Thank you.
» No, it must be an architect's dream. It
must be an architect's dream to have
this large of a property. And I think
you've done a wonderful job in just
creating all the spaces and the
materials. And I I like the, you know,
the cedar wood but with the stone below.
And and I think Those are are really
nice nice features and it's obviously
you guys have taken a lot of thought
into how to develop this. Um, a couple
of things I I would like although it's
not required for this meeting the last
but I do think um the screening
particularly
those side it would be nice to see some
plans on what might be
to help with that. And I also agree with
uh David that I'd like to see maybe a
little less asphalt and some gravel on the property just for that rural
character. Um but and I I too as long as
once you do the neighborhood outreach
and I would suggest that you you do that
fairly quickly. Um as long as no one has
any you know objections to the height. I have um Other
than that,
it's a beautiful idea. I didn't even
know that property exist.
» How about you, Don?
>> Um, yeah. No, I think everything uh I've
heard already spoken I I am supportive
of. I think it's an particularly elegant
execution of uh trying to preserve and
celebrate existing structures at the
same time developing an entirely new set
of structures with a new pallet. I think
it's nicely done. Um
I think also acknowledging uh trying to
preserve so many existing uh aspects of
the property, the existing pool, um the
courtyard, the library, all of that is
to be commended. Um the goal to minimize
the impact on removal of trees or moving
of trees um is also to be commended. Um
but generally, yeah, I'm very supportive
of the project. Um, I know we don't our
it's not our charter to deal with
exceptions and variances other than than
provide a opinion on it, but um I echo
member Middleman's comments regarding
um the heightened variances on the
library and the new structure.
Um although I feel less passionate about
impacting the new structure or the tiny
little portion of it that is causing
that variance.
Um, yeah. No, I think it's great.
Okay. Um, so,
uh, we'll note that the applicant was
commended, um, for providing an update
to the property with some deferred
maintenance. Uh, the for keeping the
library in the brick courtyard kind of
as a homage to the old at the structures
of the property. Um applicant was also
commended for the retention of trees and
transplanting of trees um and the amount
of landscaping being provided uh as well
as um what has been said the
preservation of different features on
the property for such as the library
pool and other usable structures. Uh so
we heard a couple of comments for
recommendations.
Um, one is to uh ensure that there is
adequate screen screening between 8 Blue
Ridge Lane and the new structures on the
property. Uh, as well as to provide
neighborhood outreach um and
the input from neighbors um and to look
at the possibility of reducing some of
the asphalt and providing more gravel in
place of that asphalt.
And the one piece here, we had a comment
regarding kind of the redesign of the
main house to remove the need for
variance from uh member Middleman.
Sullivan concurred um and member Lindsay
there. I think um and then I'll just add
that, you know, this would be
recommendations coming from the ASRB.
The applicant still needs to be able to
make the findings for the variance and
that will be something that's up to the
planning commission. Uh I think we would
at the staff level still encourage the
applicant to try to avoid the need for
variance. It's just a general thing
that's good to avoid um with regard to
the main house in particular uh when
you're starting with a brand new
structure. Uh it's something that you
know trying to find the hardship and why
uh those findings can be made could be
difficult. So I think what u I would do
if it's okay with the board is just kind
of express there was a little bit of a a
mixed opinion on that. um and from a
design perspective um but that the
applicant should still you know will
need to pursue and get approval of the
variance uh if they do want to move
forward with that.
>> Yeah. I mean
>> exactly considering that the conceptual
view is here to prevent surprises at
formal
>> correct you know reading if I were to
read directly from the code that the
strict application of this chapter would
result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship which is
not of the applicant's own making is
extremely hard for me to sit here today
granted for a cable
>> understood that's something that staff
looks at as well and that's that's uh so
but you know it'll be the applicant's
choice and they'll they move forward. So
with that, we've received if there's any
other comments to add. Um, no. And then
so they did install story polls. Um, so
the question would be is if this needs
to come back to the ASRB. Um, if not,
then it would uh it could be forwarded
to staff if they redesign everything
that didn't need any exceptions, but
they probably will at least for the
pavilion building. So if it doesn't come
back to the ASRB, um, it would still go
to the planning commission for final
design review. Yep. Yeah. I mean, I
haven't heard any comments that would
suggest a need for it to come back to
ASRB. So, I think we the motion is to
move directly to formal with staff
um with all the comments and that's your
motion expressed. That is my motion.
Great.
>> Second that motion.
» I would like to still possibly I it
doesn't have to but come back to us, but
I I would like to see a a screening
proposal um before just just so I don't
know the consent item something just to
take a look and make sure that was taken
out
» how could we accommodate that without a
formal ASRB conception
>> you know if it's I mean there there was
some significant landscape plans in
provided with this packet um so I'm not
sure how much more they'll show maybe
they'll add some more landscaping there
uh between the neighbor. Um so if it
comes back to the ASRB just for the
landscaping that would be an item in
which could do it's been done in the
past.
>> Reluctant to make an applicant jump
through a hoop that's not going to move
the needle on if the project's approved.
» So So no change to the motion on that
>> to the motion. All right. Is there a
second?
>> I believe Delgavio seconded.
>> Second.
>> Great.
>> Okay. Uh, Chair Lindseay.
>> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Comra.
>> Member Delgavio.
>> Yes.
>> Member Middleman.
>> Yes.
>> Member Sullivan.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Great. So, we'll be in touch in the next
day or two with a letter outlining the
outcome.
Hey.
» Um, all right. Moving on to the next
agenda item. So, uh, 675 men's aid away.
He goes up again.
>> Actually, can I can I ask a procedural
question?
>> Sure.
>> The landscape plan is not required in
the ASRB submittal.
>> Not with the conceptual designer view,
>> right?
>> It is with form.
>> So,
all right, never mind.
Although we have h we have had cases
where we've requested back with a
landscape
>> with yeah we've had sometimes comments
other comments get addressed at the next
stage whereas just bringing back the
landscape plan that's occurred. Yes.
» And this is the third and final item on
tonight's agenda. I will be introducing
the project at 675 Mansin the Way for
ASRB review. For this conceptual design
review project, the applicant is
proposing to demolish an existing single
family dwelling, uh, three existing
accessory structures and an existing ADU
and to construct a new single family
dwelling, a new detached garage, two new
uh detached ADUs and associated site
improvements. and ask for uh item three.
Uh there are no desk items at this time.
So to give a bit background on this
property, uh the property size is 2.72
acres and is in the RR uh rural
residential zoning district. Uh the
basic setbacks for properties in the
zoning district is also 50 ft minimum
from all sides. Uh the project site is
located at the southeastern portion of
Woodside and is located adjacent to
Whiskey Hill Road and we are adjacent to
Sandh Hill Road. Uh there are two
existing driveways uh one located
towards the northwestern side and the
other located at the southwestern ed
sorry the southeastern edge. Uh the
topography of the site
is relatively flat from Manne Way to the
central portion of the property. Uh as
you move down uh east uh towards the
rear uh the slope declines
significantly. Um and Bear Gulch Creek a
designated stream and stream corridor in
Woodside runs along this eastern portion
of the project site. Uh the subject site
also includes uh existing vineyards uh
along the central portion uh between the
existing main residence and that stream
corridor. Uh the property includes a 25
foot wide uh right-of-way easement and a
20 foot wide driveway easement uh is
serving as an e ingress egress path for
that neighboring property on the north
uh currently not used by that adjacent
neighbor um on that northern portion of
the project site. Um there are also uh a
12T wide storm water easement and a 30
foot wide uh ride ofway easement on that
southern uh edge uh of the site.
And
there are four accessory structures you
can see in this demolition plan uh along
the front and rear portions of the
project site. So there's that one uh
accessory structure near that stream
corridor uh along with those three other
accessory structures
um ranging from 288 ft to approximately
2,14
square ft structure. Uh that's currently
being called as an ADU. Um so these four
structures uh along with that main
residence uh they're all proposed to be
removed.
And you can see uh the existing pictures
of those uh uh structures at the site
along with uh the portion of the
vineyard that's also proposed to be
removed.
This is uh a slide of the proposed site
plan. Uh I provided uh two site plans.
Uh the right side shows more uh details
uh showing the extent of that adjusted
uh driveway. And as noted in the staff
report, a second driveway exception uh
may be uh would be required actually
since uh they are uh proposing to adjust
uh the second driveway opening uh
further uh northwest along that man's
need roadway.
And as for the uh vineyard as mentioned
earlier would be um modified and at this
time they are proposing a septic leech
fields to be placed in that area of that
existing vineyard space.
And so here are the proposed elevations
uh starting with that main residence. So
at the top uh shows the proposed front
elevation and the bottom shows the
proposed rear elevation for that main
residence.
And these are additional elevations for
that main residence uh with the left
showing the left elevation and that
right showing the right elevation.
These are proposed elevations for that
detached garage
and the proposed elevations uh for that
ADU1
and proposed elevations for the second
ADU.
And so again uh physical materials
samples are not required at the CDR
stage. However, the applicant has showed
uh digital uh samples of the proposed
materials and uh for all structures
proposed at the site uh they are
proposing uh wood sighting uh as well as
gray uh stone veneer uh and painted uh
dark colored uh slate roofing.
The applicant has provided uh additional
renderings for this uh project.
So that concludes my presentation. Uh
staff is happy to answer any questions.
Uh story pools were also installed at
the site uh at least 10 days prior to
the hearing and the applicant is also
here in attendance to answer any
questions. Thank you.
» Does anyone on the board have questions
of staff?
question about the amount of trees that
are to be removed. Could you provide
some clarity on that?
>> Sure. Yes. So there are 21 trees uh to
be removed mainly along that uh western
uh front portion. Um at this time we
know that six are sign uh considered
significant trees. Uh of those six
significant trees uh two are cited in
were health
questions again. The uh black wire mesh
on the fence once again it seems pretty
tight and it's tight to the ground. Have
you made any revisions to that at this
point for wildlife habitat passing?
Um I believe the applicant can provide a
better responses
get to that
all the structures are all within the
height uh limits. There's no exceptions
to records as expected. No, the yeah, as
from the information we have so far, it
doesn't appear that the although this is
just a it is a technicality when you are
moving you have two driveways and you're
moving one of them, it does require the
second driveway exception. Um, and as we
know in the staff report, typically
getting further away from an
intersection is a good thing. Um, it
does then move it right across from a
driveway across the street. Um, so some
of those things in terms of safety and
sight distance are things that we get at
the next stage. Um, and it seems like
the right thing to do. They could uh uh
pro we could process a second driveway
exception.
>> You anticipated my second question.
>> Have a question. The lead shield have to
go beyond
>> I think they're No, aren't they they I
think they're a little bit beyond the
applicants probably best explain it. Um
but they they there's some area where
they have to remove some of the vineyard
to accommodate it and also they have the
expansion area
in the area where they're removing the portion where they're removing it
yet.
>> And and looking at the lighting, it
appears that it's not dark sky lighting.
>> No. So these are it's interesting. Um
we'll get the full details, but I
believe these are compliant. Um, when
you see these glass shields, now that
you have the small LED bulbs, those are positioned way in the top of the
housing, which is technically shielded
where that light source is. So, a lot of
these old fixtures, you'd see the light
bulb hanging down. And now, what we're
seeing is a lot of these light new, more
modern features have these tiny little
bulbs up in the top. So, the area of the
light source is shielded.
Whatever.
>> I don't think it's really the case with
these specific fixtures, but
>> yeah. Well, so when we just see we just
get these pictures, we get the
specifications to the next stage and
they will have to make sure that the the
bulbs do not hang down where they kind
of eye level. You'd see them from the uh
through the translucent glass.
>> And is the Benjamin Moore paint color
that Iron Mountain is that the siding
paint color versus I don't know what
Vera Stone is.
So it looks like the entire majority of
the building is that Benjamin Moore iron
stone iron mountain which is pretty dark
very dark. go back to the um
so there and this is something the
applicant can clarify cuz you know the renderings on the front had much
lighter colored wood and then
>> what they're showing here is so I think
what we're seeing is that it is this um
hickory stain is the actual sign
Benjamin Moore I'd have to ask the
applicant to clarify
>> maybe the
>> I think that might be yeah I think
that's just some of the the trim
painting
and
>> actually I got that clarification from
that applicant. Uh as far as for the um
uh exterior elevation uh for that wood
uh sighting detail, uh they're going
with the uh color shown in this uh
materials rendering.
» Thank you.
» So they won't uh they're not proposing
the wood color shown in this rendering
from the title sheet. Uh they're showing
the um um the wood color shown in this
one. So it's it will be darker.
» He's itching to answer us. Move.
>> Any other questions of staff?
>> Does the fence uh conform to what's in
the code for fences?
Um I can note that they will have to um
do you have a specific question?
>> They're really tight basically.
>> Yeah. I mean we'll ensure I you know I'd
have to go back off the top of my head.
Um but uh yeah any of the proposed
fences
>> as far as the fencing um a portion of
the existing fencing uh is existing
along that rear side and is proposed to
uh remain uh while that existing fencing
along the side and front uh which is
along San Hill Road and along Manzanita
Way are proposed to be removed and a new
6 foot tall uh wooden wire fencing is
proposed around that perimeter of the
property uh approximately in that same
location.
So yeah, we'll ensure that that it's no
taller than six feet and it has proper
setback.
>> I I guess the question that's come up
this evening is this tight wire mesh is
that
>> so that you know in terms of that we're
looking at residential design
guidelines. There's general plan
policies that encourage wildlife
passage. Um and so uh definitely there's
been cases in which people have been
looked at if there's sufficient wildlife
passage through the property. Um, and
sometimes people have asked to kind of,
you know, raise some portions, sometimes
lower some portions of fencing to help
encourage more wildlife passage. So,
it's not a hard municipal code
requirement. It's a more of a design
guidelines and general plan policies for
the encouragement of wildlife passage.
Anything else?
>> Okay. With that, we'll move on to
presentation from the applicant.
>> Thank you everybody. Uh my name is Is
this on?
>> Uh yes, just you can uh press the red
handle in front of you under just below
the mic and I can raise it up a little
bit.
>> Okay. My name is Gary Coulat Associates
Architecture. Um thank you everybody for
uh all your excellent questions. I think
uh um it's refreshing to have a board
that um is concerned but also um ask
careful uh pertinent questions. So I
appreciate that talking from someone
I've been to many many towns and cities
in the Bay Area. So um it's the first
time we've been in in Athetherton for
many years. Um I mean Woods, sorry.
>> Like you're not here.
>> Um
>> we get confused all the Yeah. Uh I hope
everybody was able to make it out to the
site and got access onto the property.
Um it is quite a beautiful property. Um
it uh especially because the trees are mostly uh located on the perimeter.
It it's kind of nice that we really
didn't have to take down too many trees.
I'll speak on that in a moment. Um
you've got the creek that circumvents
the side and the rear. Um and um
but we do have uh San Hill Road right
adjacent to us and so that's a a very
busy road and a lot of noise and and u
and action there. Um we also we're uh
have this vineyard that is um it's a dry
vineyard at this point. It's not
irrigated. So that's wonderful. It's producing. Um we intended to keep
as much of this vineyard as possible. We
are still working with the uh the septic
design. We finally got our perk rates
back and we're we're moving along on
that. Um our intention is not to uh
interlace these uh leash lines with the
vineyard if possible. Um we do have an
area that's cleared for that already. Um
the um the site I want to speak a little
bit about the dual access because um we
were we were um uh very excited to have
dual access in Woodside um on this
particular property given the fact that
it's it's close to the corner. Um
there's not a lot of uh street parking.
Uh this the way it functions today is
the nice loop loop in loop out. you can
get a lot of cars into that um that
driveway on site. Um so we wanted to
maintain that dual access and we worked
really hard trying to keep the the
both access points where they are. Uh it
just really wasn't functioning very
well. Wasn't very architectural as well.
And so that's why we're we're proposing
to move the the first the on the is it
the you're you're calling it the east
the south southern one um away from San
Hill Road. It's just safer to do that.
Our engineers have looked at that and
verified that it meets all the
engineering standards to do that. Um uh
it just it just really helps our site.
Um and we really want to maintain it. um
if we had to uh we would move the move
it back to the existing, but we're just
asking to you guys and everybody to uh
understand why we've done that. It just
lines up better with our motorc court,
with our driveways. It doesn't it
reduces uh impervious coverage as well.
uh and and impervious coverage. I know
this came up on the on the previous um
item. We are also inheriting a property
with quite a bit more coverage than
what's allowed. Um and we are uh asking
for a little bit more than what's
allowed, quite a bit less than than um
uh what we could ask for. And certainly
meeting that 25% reduction. We're
probably about 60 70% reduction. So, I
think we're we're we're we're in that
good spirit of reducing the impervious
coverage. The home itself uh is a
two-story home and u we set that back to
get get the heights that we desired to
get our our our uh 11 foot ceilings in
the main floor and and nice ceilings
upstairs as well. Um the house is
designed in a we're calling it a
transitional um you know ranch not ranch
but um it's a hard to put labels on
houses these days you know but it it has
a lot of traditional forms but it's got
more modern detailing and so we're it's
a falls into this transitional u uh
label I suppose. Um the materials are
all going to be natural. Uh we got the
cedar, we've got real stone. Um and the
wood that's uh there was a question
about the wood. Uh we've got some
panels, we've got some heavy trim, we've
got fasciding
will get a natural stain on it. Um and
um we think that the combination is very
uh is very becoming. It's it's it's
understated. It's elegant. It fits
Woodside. Um, and it it also fits the
site very well. And the the the ADUs and
garage will also be very complimentary
matching materials. The garage or detach
garage because it's a detach structure
has a height limit. Um, and it so we had
to cheat the the roof pitch a little
bit. It doesn't match the house quite
otherwise we'd have to ask for a
variance. And so we've decided to not do
that and make the the garage comply with
the height limit. Um
what else do I want to talk about? Um
the it was is staff noted that the um
our entrance is is not of human scale or
something like that. Um we we're
certainly willing to fine-tune this and lower it a little bit. Our thinking
was when we were doing our our our
massing is we have two uh gables that
flank the entry. Those are those main uh feature points. And then um we
felt that this we kept raising it to
make it feel better fit the other to to
fit the scale of the other tube. Um,
however, um,
we could see that we could bring it down
a foot or so and and still still get
that feel without it looking um too dim.
So, we want to certainly want to call
that call that entrance out, but also uh
be respectful to the overall
architecture,
but we're certainly amanable to to work
with staff on on on getting that down.
And maybe there's a good compromise
there.
>> This is the bridge that you're speaking.
>> I think they're talking about the entry itself with the arch. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Got it.
>> Right.
So, um I'm trying to about the fences.
We've worked on a landscape architect.
Um he's done several projects in town um
and he's aware of the uh the uh the
guidelines versus the rules. And we just
felt at this point um that you've got
the creek, you've got a lot of wildlife
that that has that creek access. We're
certainly not going to block any of
that, but with the vineyards to protect
the swimming pool, all those things, it
we just felt that that the uh the wire
fence was was the right thing to do. We
certainly um can work again with staff
uh with our owners and um see if there's
any way we can we can work together on
this.
But overall, I think it it it pretty
much speaks for itself. I do want to say
I I I certainly can emphasize with with
uh with the other architect our
renderings um we use different programs
that will render different ways um and
also seeing it on the screen at least on
the projector screen maybe not on the TV
it it also renders different and I've
noticed we noticed that uh the end the
our cover sheet renders were even
brighter tonight whereas the our
elevations were even darker. So, I think
you're going to find something in the
middle. Um, and uh and certainly those uh cover sheet renderings were not
meant to be uh like photo realistic, let
me put it that way. So,
but I think you get the idea. It's going
to be medium brown. What is that? So,
um, is she any questions? I'd be happy
to do my best to answer those.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, does any member of
the board have questions? Um,
>> I have a a quick question. I don't want
to be on my own. So,
my house is fit because your kid goes
crazy. They're good. Um, but on the
sides of the property between your
neighbors property, are there wildlife
corridors? I mean, you're not fenced all
the way.
>> We are. To answer your question, there's
an existing fence on the um, if you're
looking at the property to the left.
There's an existing solid wood fence
there between the two properties.
Um, there is an existing fence along the
front. And there's also the existing
fence that's along Sand Hill, which is
actually not even on our property. It's
in the right of way. And so we are
removing that fence, but it has has been
working to a certain degree. I I I but I
think there's still wildlife that that
probably gets on the property. I I don't
live there, so I don't know. I I'm just
thinking between you and your neighbors.
Um are you going to use that fence
that's already there or
>> we our plan is to use that fence and not
added additional fence to have any
corridors. Correct.
>> We're not we're not trying to we think
that the creek is enough of a corridor.
» Yeah, that'd be great.
The property is open on three sides
essentially with just one neighbor with
a wood fence.
>> That's correct.
>> That's right. Yeah.
>> There's a lot of access around that
property.
>> Mhm.
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
» And and it's interesting the property
does um extend to the other side of the
creek from Whiskey Hill. So, there's a
little section up there that we're not
planning to do anything. But, um, you
know, I think we need to be careful not
to make that like a vacant open site,
um, for other, you know, for other
reasons. Um, so we will probably have
some kind of a security fence up there.
Um,
but that's I don't even know if we have
anything proposed other than what's
there already. So,
>> there's an existing white fence there,
right?
>> I think there's an existing wild. Yeah.
So,
I have to I have to be honest. I I
haven't spent much time on that little
piece of the property. Um
we've been focusing on the on this other
piece. It's it's it's been a wonderful
property to to work on and staff's been
great. So,
» any other questions?
I have one as far as the overall pitch
of that uh gable or arch before the door
and the pitch of the ex the other two
elements of the home. If the angle was
not quite as sharp, wouldn't it feel a
little softer and not as imposing as
what it feels? You with me? On the front
page when I'm looking and seeing,
>> could we pull the elevations?
>> This peak, this peak, and this peak, if
they were flattened out a little bit,
wouldn't it feel a little less
>> in your face sort of? Maybe it's just
plan I'm looking at.
>> We've we've chosen this particular roof
pits because it really really works with
the style quite well and and it's very
strong. Um I I don't again you're seeing
this without trees. So we didn't
superimpose any trees, you know, on
these elevations. There's a lot of trees
in the front actually that are existing
that we're maintaining and that's going
to go a long way. They're very tall and
so this house have a little bit of
height uh is not is not going to stand
out. And this roof pitch, you can see it
quite often in town. There's several
examples of that roof pitch.
>> It's interesting because when I look at
that versus looking at this, it doesn't
seem as severe a point.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Just to add really the the plates on the
second floor.
>> Sorry, I'm Jaclyn Green.
>> Um the plates on the second floor have
been drastically reduced. So you you're
seeing standard 8 foot plates on the
second floor, not 10 or 11 or 12 or what
people like these days, only eight feet.
So that is that helps with the severity
of the height, but it's also going to
add character to the inside because
you're going to have vated ceilings
inside and a lower plate line. And it's
going to add these cool little nooks and
crannies on that second floor as you go
through the bridge to the other
elements. So we are aware of the
steepness. That's definitely part of the
style of the architecture. But in order
to reduce that overall uh impact, we've
brought the plate down. The whole second
floor has that 8ft plate.
>> Thank you.
I have a question on this bridge. So
this this bridge it's all light. So in
the evening is it going to be I mean it
be lit up really essentially. It's all
windows
>> there. There's a lot of it's a it's a
lot of windows. Um the um this house is
going to have shades and most of the
time these kind of these kind of windows
you know are going to be drawn in
nighttime for privacy. So, I don't think
that you're going to have a lot of light
uh impact coming out of these of these
rooms.
So,
our idea was to make this more of a
transparent and light. We tried to
lighten it up.
» What's on the back side of that bridge?
What you're seeing is that's the that's
the great room ceiling up there and
that's clad in stone. Has a flat roof.
So when you walk on that bridge, you can
see over that roof and out to the
backyard.
The whole house is focused on the back
of the rear, right? The whole
entertaining and the the pool and the the garden and the vineyards.
>> Okay.
Any other questions?
» Neighbor outreach.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Have we had any neighborhood outreach?
>> We haven't done any outreach yet. So,
we have had the story pulls up for a
couple weeks and we haven't heard any
anything.
>> Yeah.
I think with going to two stories, your
decision to push the house uh a little
bit further away from men's and either
way is a good decision to offset that
height a little bit.
>> How far is it from?
>> It's
the existing house is right on the
setback.
>> Oh, another
>> 20 70 something.
>> 70. Yeah. And also going up adding some
rooms upstairs um reduces our overall
footprint.
as well. We we started on one story and
we cl you know we we were starting to go
you know exceed the uh the the
coverages. So this helps to concentrate
it.
Okay.
Anybody else?
» Okay. Thank you.
Um without uh public
comment, anyone online?
>> There's no one online.
>> No one online. No one I see no one in
the room.
>> So uh we will skip public comment or
open and close it immediately. Uh and
move to board deliberation.
>> Okay. You need Okay, we're going to take
five minutes
>> break.
>> 60 seconds.
» Thank those knee replacements. Pretty
simple.
Yep.
You're all making it easy on us. It's
only 610.
» The last The last meeting you had was in
January.
>> Was it really
>> January?
So, yes, we're a little rusty tonight.
Developed a clear obsession around
fences for some reason. I'm not sure
where that's coming from, but
you can see the desire for security with
sand hill.
Okay. Uh, resuming. So, uh, board
deliberation. I'll kick it off tonight.
Um, yeah, I think I was hardressed to
put a label on style as well. So, but I
commend your efforts to integrate the
gables, stone, standing seam, metal
roof, flat roof. So, it I think it works
as a design. Um, I do have one
reservation. I'll echo Vice Chair
Commer's comments about the bridge and
the amount of glazing. Um, we often with
homes that are on hillsides projecting
outwards, we often are very concerned
about light projection. Um I think there
is some I I hold some reservations here
about just projection of light. We don't
want to we're hardressed to to accept uh
shades or blinds as a solution in this
case. Um so that's one area where I do
have some concerns about this especially
given that's facing away. Um,
but beyond that, I think overall, I
mean, it's a I think it's a good a good
approach to the design. Um, yeah, that's pretty much sums it up
for me.
» Well, one thing we've asked for in the
past has been, could the windows on that
backside be a glazing that is
non-reflective?
>> Yeah. And so something that come to my
mind when I hear the comments is we
actually just completed up a formal
design review with staff in which the
conceptual design review came to ASRB
and it had a fair amount of glazing on
the front of the building and uh one of
the solutions for that project was to do
what's called this low E glass. It's
like low emission glass. So it helps to
reduce the amount of light emission. Um
and so that's something that ASRB could
consider.
Could we require shades to be a part of
the
>> I you would just caution on that just
because you know the enforcement from
the town on something like that is just
not realistic.
» Yeah. The property developed below me uh
the plan was for this photochromatic
glass and they never implemented
>> even low E. Isn't that what we require
all the time pretty much? Uh there's
well there's low energy requirements but
this is something that's for light
emission in particular. Uh tell the
story that it's it sometimes called
turtle glass uh given that a lot of
large homes on the Florida coast were um
providing a lot of glazing and it was
creating problems for the turtles laying
their eggs on the beach at night. Um,
and so this was many years ago and a lot
of this glass technology kind of came
from that. Um, and trying to reduce the
light emission in particular.
>> I don't think we can require it, but is
this something that we can look into as
being part of an objective standard?
>> Yes, definitely. In terms of like the
amount of glazing, I think it's
something that um,
>> even the materials used like low E
glass,
>> right? Yeah, you low e glass could be
something to be looked at as well as the
amount of glazing percentages of walls,
things like that could be built into
objective standards.
» Anyone else?
» Liberation.
>> I I'm curious. Are are they looking for
a high?
>> Uh it is no not for this. Um I mean
we'll we'll get more information at
formal design review stage to verify
that. So I just always want that caveat.
But um at the way it's shown now it does
not appear that it would need any type
of height exception.
>> It didn't appear to have any exceptions.
Right.
>> It's just this moving of the driveway
which is the second driveway except
>> I can totally support that. I mean they
already have the second access, right?
So they're just trying to move it to be
better situated. It would be a different
conversation if they were asking for a
second drive and they only had one
currently.
Anyone else like to summarize their
thoughts and
position on this?
>> Yeah, I I I think it's a really nice
project that really makes excellent use
of the site and I didn't have any
questions or concerns. I do know that
often we talk about large glass uh
penetration being a concern about
flooding the neighborhood to a light,
but I have looked as I've driven around
Woodside, the newer glass products do a
lot to reduce emission. And I rarely
drive through Woodside and go, "Oh, wow.
There's a lot of light coming from that
big glass house." But I see a lot of
people with non-standard
uh light fixtures that put out enormous
amounts of light. That probably is where
we need to be as cautious as anything
and avoiding, you know, a lot of
uplighting, only doing down lighting and
some of the existing policies that are
trying to deal with that. But I thought
that design was great and would be a
wonderful improvement to the property.
» Yeah, I kind of echo that. I mean, I had
no issues with the pitch or the bridge.
You know, it all fits with what we
currently allow in in Woodside. I think
it's a great update. I think like I
said, moving the driveway makes sense to
align it with the motor court. Like if
you were starting fresh, that's exactly
where I'd put it.
>> Yeah, I don't really have any issues.
I would I would support moving to formal
staff.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Hey, Sage.
>> Yes. Great. Okay. So I've heard uh so
the ASRB commended the applicant uh for
the design and materials of the building
um with the one somewhat concerned is
looking at the glazing at the bridge um
facing mansita in particular uh and
talked about possibility of implementing
some low e low light emission glass for
the project. Um, and other than that,
uh, their applicant commended for the
applicant for looking at the driveway
and the new location. Uh, and I'll just
add the caveat so long as it is, uh,
shown to be safe uh, through their
project engineer and verified by the
town engineering department. Um, but
with that, I heard one comment about
forwarding this to staff for formal
design review. um if they still needed
the second driveway exception and it
didn't have to come back to ASRB, it
would just go straight to the planning
commission and they would act on the
design and the second driveway
exception.
>> Okay. Do we have a motion?
>> I'd make the motion that it go straight
to the planning commission based on
those facts and that they would consider
the lighting plan somewhere along the
line.
>> I'll second that.
>> Chair Lindsay. Yes,
>> Vice Chair Comra.
>> Yes.
>> Member Deaggavio.
>> Yes.
>> Member Middleman.
>> Yes.
>> Member Sullivan.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
very much.
>> Thank you so much.
» And I apologize. Who second? Who do
this?
>> Second.
>> Done. Thank you.
>> Yep.
I always thought it was made notes on
that.
>> We all do just temple.
>> I would defer to Julia.
>> Okay. We have three director's reports.
>> Yes. And I
>> thank you very much.
>> It's a beautiful view.
>> Um what I what I'm going to do is just
primarily focus on March because that
has I think what we now now mainly talk
about is looking at the number of units.
Um so the uh the I think the second page
here has these um kind of different
graphs and it shows
that in January we didn't issue permits
for any new units. Um it's possible that really comes out of just being
after the holidays. Um and you know for
whatever reason it's still kind of the
middle of winter and people just at that
particular time didn't have permits
ready. Um February they noted that we
issued three permits for ADUs and one
for a single family dwelling. And then
in March we had six ADUs, one of them
being a Jadu and one new single family
dwelling. And April is over. I just have
not run that report. I'll probably do
that tomorrow.
» Um other than that, we continue to be
busy and I know we have had um kind of
this gap in time. We have had a lot of
applications come in um in the last uh
few months and um our team is full
again. Um one of our planners was out
for about eight months but she's back
now and so be great to help kind of move
some more of the stuff along.
>> Good get to talk much.
>> So is there do you see a trend now with
like new construction? I mean there's
clearly a lot more ADUs getting built at
this
>> Definitely a lot more ADUs for sure. Um,
and no, I you know, I think part of it
is is ADUs have kind of been
demystified. You know, I think, you
know, there's been just not just from
the town's perspective, but just all
over the state, a lot more focus and
people understand what they are, um,
understand that they can be attainable.
I you know and something that we promote
and are continuing to find ways to
promote more is that the town has signed
up as part of um this county ADU
resource center. Um so they also provide
other types of things that can help
people with looking at budgets or they
have different designs that you know we
always tell people to double check with
the town and make sure these designs uh
can fit within our parameters but most
of them do. Um, so there's other
resources that we are continuing to
promote and finding other ways to
promote better as well as we're
continuing to work on uh ADU standards.
Um, we went to the planning commission
in
um, uh, March, I guess getting confused
at I'm sorry, is April. Um, with uh,
some additional changes to ADU standards
to try to provide more flexibility. uh
they had a few comments and we're hoping
to bring that back to them on May 20th
before it goes to the town council. So
just again continuing to work on ways to
provide more flexibility for use.
>> I know that we passed I think we were
required to do it by the state but that
we were have
pre-approved
ADU.
>> Yeah. So there's a you know essentially
the we have we'll just follow the state
law for that. There's a process for
that. No one has applied for that. Um so
as an architect or a prefab company they
could come into the town and say we'd
like for you to just look at our
building itself. It won't be a
foundation or actual site review but
does it meet the height and the size
which are basically the two criteria. Um
and so they could do someone could you
know any company could apply for that be
reviewed by the town to ensure that it's
okay and then from there um they would
have then we would post that on our
website directly. So the question of the
question was would this board be
involved in any way with that review or
>> no these are just things that do they
meet code um and so uh and so it's just
based up
>> it's a guideline aspect of
>> to the extent of yes I mean they have to
meet the objective criteria for the ADUs
um and so uh this ADU resource center
they have a lot of people have gone
through them and had that posted online
um you know for example If one ADU had a
20ft plate height limit, that just
wouldn't meet our code requirement.
>> But with regards to like colors or, you
know, facades, the only way that this
board could have any input on what those
are is through
the generation of objective standards.
>> That's correct. If there were some
objective design standards would
definitely involve the ASRB,
>> which leads into the other question I
had. you know, we've had fencing, color,
and lighting come up regularly when
we're viewing,
>> you know, project after project. And
we've also had a very large gap. And
maybe I'm going to put my foot in my
mouth and say that it's been a light
year.
>> Um, but
yeah, would it be in this board's
perview to have a study session on those
three topics and and then maybe come up
with some suggestions for a future
objective standard?
>> Uh, yes. If the town is to engage in
that process, we'd definitely in involve
the ASRB in that
>> stage at this point. If people are, we
know people are building ADUs, they
don't have to come by our
>> That's correct. They go straight to the
building permit.
>> Yeah.
>> And are they somewhere that we'd be able
to look up and see that? Like I've got
one popping up on my street and I'm
like, "Oh, I wonder what it's going to
look like."
>> Sure. Yeah. So, uh, the plans are all
public record. Um, so we can't give
copies of them out without the
architect's permission. Um, but they're
always available at town. Um, so you can
we have open counter hours Monday
through Thursday in the mornings. Um,
that's one way I always encourage people
to just maybe set up an appointment with
somebody. Um, and they can sometimes do
that after the counter hours as well.
Uh, so that's just so you ensure someone
will be there and easily be able to
>> So that's not online anywhere to look
at.
>> No, it's just because we because then
people can make copies of it.
>> Oh, I see. Got So that's why those
particular plans are just viewable at
town hall.
>> Thanks.
>> I see people now instead of
they're doing sort of mobile homes
with
>> Is that
>> um it's not in Woodside. Um it's
something that you know there's you know
the tiny homes and even mobile homes in
general um those are not permitted in
Woodside in terms of being able for
someone to live in. Um you can store a
mobile home on your property but the
main issue is um
uh safety. Um are they connected to
septic systems? Are the septic systems
evaluated for that? Um they're not on a
foundation. we have a lot of
geotechnical issues in the town of
Woodside. Um, and so that's the primary
reason is that they're not a fixed to a
foundation. Uh, and so that any any
habitable living unit needs to comply
with those standards
at least for Woodside. I I can't speak
to other jurisdictions and how things
are.
>> People that are doing it.
» Okay. that I will adjourn at whatever
that is 6:24
3
>> done.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you.
We're back.