[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.