[0:13] All right.
[0:24] Okay, going to call to order a meeting
[0:26] of the SRB for Monday
[0:28] May 18th at 4:30 p.m.
[0:32] Roll call.
[0:36] Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Comer.
[0:38] Yes.
[0:39] Member Del Gavio. Yes. Member Middleman.
[0:42] Yes. Member Sullivan.
[0:44] Yes.
[0:45] Hey, gang's all here.
[0:48] Um, do we have any changes to the
[0:50] agenda? Uh, there are no changes to the
[0:52] agenda. You have one desk item of
[0:54] support for item number two on Espinoza
[0:58] and two desk items for item number three
[1:01] um, from the same neighbor um, just
[1:05] requesting some additional landscaping.
[1:07] That'll be noted in the staff report.
[1:09] And um, I'll just note that
[1:12] the with regarding to the chair and the
[1:14] vice chair vote the
[1:16] uh, we've discussed at the staff level.
[1:18] We're going to bring a consent item to
[1:20] the council. See if they'd like to waive
[1:22] that provision for this time. And then
[1:24] that's going to go to the next council
[1:25] meeting. After that decision, we'll
[1:27] bring it back to the SRB for vote.
[1:30] And item one, the minutes of May 4th
[1:33] have been pulled. Yes, so item one
[1:35] actually is that is a change to the
[1:37] agenda. Item one is not has not been
[1:39] provided yet. It's just the minutes. Um,
[1:41] so we'll provide that on your next
[1:43] agenda.
[1:44] Okay.
[1:46] With that, we'll just jump right into
[1:47] the public hearing and
[1:49] the first item being 885 Espinoza Road.
[1:59] So, in to recuse myself from 885
[2:01] Espinosa Road. Okay. I live within 1,000
[2:03] ft. Um not only do I use the road, I
[2:07] also participate in the road maintenance
[2:08] committee that maintains the road
[2:10] as well as drive through the
[2:12] intersection of
[2:14] Manzanita and Espinosa every day. So
[2:18] since I have a foreseeable conflict and
[2:20] bias, I'm going to step out of the room.
[2:24] So noted that uh member Middleman's
[2:27] recusing himself from this item and
[2:30] Julie, you'll notify him when we're
[2:31] finished.
[2:32] Right. Thank you.
[2:34] Um okay.
[2:36] All right.
[2:38] Hope you're all doing well. It's been a
[2:39] minute. Good to see everyone. Um so
[2:41] tonight I'm going to be giving an
[2:43] introduction to the project at 885
[2:45] Espinosa Road.
[2:46] The applicant has submitted formal
[2:48] design review plans for proposals to
[2:50] demolish an existing accessory structure
[2:53] and to construct a remodel and addition
[2:56] up to a complete demolition rebuild for
[2:57] an existing single-family residence and
[2:59] partial basement and an addition to an
[3:01] existing deck,
[3:03] rebuild of an existing carport and other
[3:05] site improvements. For a really brief
[3:08] bit of background, um the ASRB did hear
[3:11] this at CDR back in 2022 and at that
[3:14] time it was recommended that this
[3:16] project proceed to formal design review
[3:18] with the staff um addressing the ASRB's
[3:21] minimal comments regarding studying
[3:23] light emission.
[3:24] The project was deemed complete at a
[3:27] staff level at FDR in 2022, but the
[3:30] project did expire in December of 2024.
[3:34] In reviewing the plans that were
[3:36] submitted by the applicant, we found
[3:37] that this was a like-for-like submittal
[3:39] and that there were no substantial code
[3:41] changes since the time of the last
[3:43] application that would impact the
[3:45] project's compliance. Therefore, it was
[3:47] deemed okay to proceed directly to
[3:49] formal design review with ASRB given
[3:51] that the board had already analyzed
[3:53] conceptual design review at a public
[3:55] hearing.
[3:56] Um
[3:58] there are no uh sorry, there is one desk
[4:01] item for this, which was a letter from a
[4:03] neighbor expressing support in the
[4:05] project's design, and the project is
[4:08] categorically exempt from
[4:12] 885 Espinosa Road is in the SCP 10
[4:15] zoning district, and the property is
[4:16] approximately 3.26 acres in size. It's
[4:20] located on the west side of Espinosa
[4:21] Road, which is a private road off of
[4:23] Grandview Drive.
[4:25] The property has an existing residence
[4:26] with a partial basement and several
[4:28] accessory structures site. The property
[4:31] is characterized by steep slopes and
[4:33] includes mature oak, madrone, and
[4:35] redwood and bay trees throughout the
[4:36] property site. No tree removal is
[4:39] proposed in conjunction with the project
[4:40] at this time.
[4:43] The applicant has proposed an addition
[4:45] and remodel. Um we can see the areas of
[4:48] addition here in gray. Um remodel, we
[4:51] have dash in this carport here as well
[4:53] as some rebuilds on the dining terrace
[4:55] and addition on the deck.
[4:57] Um
[4:58] the scope of work, uh as mentioned, will
[5:00] include an addition to the deck, which
[5:02] is kind of dash back here in the back,
[5:04] relatively
[5:05] um minor upgrade improvements. Um as you
[5:09] can see on the site plan, this is
[5:10] relatively centrally located on the
[5:12] property. The
[5:14] proposed main resident additions will be
[5:15] on the western front facade and the
[5:18] eastern rear facade, and then that new
[5:21] deck addition will be on that rear
[5:22] facade as well.
[5:25] The uh proposed and existing elevations
[5:29] are shown here, so you can see the
[5:31] degree of modification that we're kind
[5:34] of looking at. There are some changes in
[5:36] roof lines, but generally same um form
[5:40] for the most part. Uh
[5:42] the roof lines will remain understated
[5:44] and simple in form, and are moderately
[5:46] sloped gable roof lines. The main
[5:48] residence is broken up into these
[5:50] segments of various heights helping to
[5:52] reduce the structure's massing. The main
[5:54] residence includes this at grade deck
[5:56] which we can see here on the back. Um
[5:59] that addition will take place there.
[6:01] Um and the rebuilt car carport roof line
[6:04] you can see on this elevation. Um
[6:07] rather than having a single mass now
[6:08] being broken into two masses which is
[6:11] helping to reduce that visual impact a
[6:12] little bit.
[6:14] And this uh rebuilt carport will
[6:16] continue to a join an existing driveway.
[6:18] There'll be some minor repaving but
[6:20] otherwise the routing
[6:22] will be relatively same.
[6:26] Uh materials for the proposed main
[6:27] residence and attached garage include
[6:29] composite shingle roofs, vertical
[6:31] stained um board and batten siding,
[6:34] stacked stone wainscots, and integral
[6:36] color plaster. The project color palette
[6:38] includes a variety of earth tone colors
[6:40] including shades of brown, gray, rusty,
[6:42] cream.
[6:43] And members of the team should be here
[6:46] uh
[6:47] to address any questions you may have
[6:49] about this design. The project team will
[6:52] provide a brief application I believe
[6:54] application presentation shortly I
[6:55] believe and the staff is happy to answer
[6:58] any questions you have for us if there
[7:00] are any that have popped up. All right,
[7:01] thank you.
[7:02] Um
[7:03] couple of questions. So uh given this is
[7:06] somewhat unique for us to do a
[7:08] re-formalization
[7:09] of a previously approved formal design
[7:11] review, can you offer any guidance to
[7:14] this board in terms of
[7:16] how the scope of our questioning?
[7:18] So it's technically a new project. The
[7:20] other project expired. Um so the board
[7:23] can provide any comments related to the
[7:25] design on this project. Um there is is
[7:29] formal design review. So what you have
[7:31] in the staff report are recommended
[7:33] conditions of approval. If the board
[7:35] finds that no changes are needed or no
[7:37] modifications to those conditions of
[7:40] approval are needed and can recommend
[7:42] approval of the project. That can be a
[7:44] motion. Um
[7:46] if there's any reasons for changes or
[7:49] modifications to the condition,
[7:51] the board can provide those
[7:52] recommendations.
[7:53] >> Okay.
[7:53] Um and we can still request uh applicant
[7:56] presentation. Yes. Yep.
[7:58] Um second question, I looking at uh
[8:01] staff report, there was feedback from
[8:03] the conceptual design review on interior
[8:05] and exterior lighting.
[8:07] Um but I couldn't find a lighting
[8:08] schedule in the package. So, hard to
[8:11] assess.
[8:14] Yeah, so um
[8:16] there is a lighting plan. In conjunction
[8:19] with this, we have it on paper and I can
[8:21] grab it for you guys if you want to
[8:23] evaluate that.
[8:24] >> Okay, we'll see if we get there, right?
[8:26] Yeah, it's like for like for what was
[8:27] proposed during the last round. Okay.
[8:30] Good. Any other questions?
[8:34] In both cases on the lighting, it was
[8:36] shielded.
[8:38] Do you know
[8:38] >> see I can show you real quick on the
[8:41] project plans.
[8:43] Anything of record that's been approved
[8:45] would but by definition meet our dark
[8:47] sky requirements and criteria for all
[8:49] lighting, right?
[8:50] Yeah.
[8:52] The yes, the lighting has to be uh
[8:54] shielded and all the faces up.
[8:56] >> This is what's being um says they're
[8:58] current exterior fixtures in conjunction
[9:01] with the structure as shown. Yeah, it's
[9:03] just that there was no
[9:05] placement or count, total count in terms
[9:07] of lighting, so where they're located.
[9:10] Oh.
[9:11] I didn't know.
[9:13] Yeah, um yeah, we can I I think it was
[9:14] provided by the applicant and just
[9:16] wasn't slip sheeted into
[9:18] and set. Typically it's like near doors
[9:20] and things like that. It wouldn't be
[9:22] throughout the facility or down the
[9:23] stairs and that sort of thing. Mhm.
[9:25] Yeah, um I have it
[9:27] um
[9:28] I believe that the applicant confirmed
[9:29] that it was like for like. I can pull it
[9:30] from the previous plan set um that they
[9:32] submitted in round one. I think that
[9:34] they had just forgotten to actually
[9:35] integrate the sheet in round two. Um,
[9:38] would that be something we're interested
[9:40] in looking at? Um, well, we'll see.
[9:41] where our questioning goes.
[9:45] And then, um, if you do look here on
[9:48] this front page, actually, on um,
[9:51] sheet A1, they have provided these
[9:53] sconce locations. It's just not
[9:56] incredibly big, um, compared Can you put
[9:59] that on the screen? Yeah, I'll put that
[10:05] If you see, uh, they do have the sconce
[10:08] locations kind of called out
[10:11] on this,
[10:12] um, initial site plan sheet.
[10:18] That's it. That's like the four of them.
[10:20] Nothing downstairs, nothing on the
[10:22] Uh, so, this carport one is on the lower
[10:24] level.
[10:29] Okay.
[10:30] Good.
[10:32] Any other questions for staff?
[10:36] Nothing. Okay. Uh, I mean, with that,
[10:37] we'll invite applicant to, uh,
[10:40] present if they choose.
[10:47] Squeeze rip. The Oh, there you go.
[10:50] Uh, good evening. My name is Gary Ahern.
[10:52] I am the project architect for 885
[10:54] Espinosa. I get the
[10:56] unusual thing about uh, making this
[10:58] presentation twice. Uh, as Jillian
[11:00] posted, um, we did go through in 2022,
[11:04] uh, was unanimously approved at that
[11:06] point.
[11:08] Um, with all the intentions, and then we
[11:10] had that little interesting hiccup in
[11:12] 22, um, and then combine that with the
[11:15] road washing out on 84,
[11:18] uh, the project sort of got put on hold.
[11:20] And, uh, life-changing, and then
[11:24] decided to pick it up again.
[11:26] Unfortunately, right after the timeline
[11:28] had expired, so that's why we're before,
[11:30] uh, you lovely people here today.
[11:32] Um, happy to answer any questions you
[11:34] might have. The one question about the
[11:36] lighting the lighting we have is is
[11:38] proposed as minimal. It's basically what
[11:40] code requires at each exterior door. We
[11:42] don't have a lot of We're not doing any
[11:43] building up lighting or anything
[11:45] artistic or anything like that.
[11:49] Okay.
[11:50] Any questions uh from members of the
[11:52] board for the app? No? No. No?
[11:56] Thank you.
[11:58] Wow, this one's going to be fast.
[12:00] Um
[12:02] Yeah, I mean I had
[12:04] So uh uh public comment. I always forget
[12:07] this one. Sorry.
[12:09] Uh is anyone online or in the room wish
[12:10] to make a comment on this project?
[12:12] For those online, please use the raise
[12:14] hand feature if you'd like to make a
[12:15] comment.
[12:21] There are no raised hands. No.
[12:23] So aside from the dust item, there was
[12:24] no other
[12:26] public comment.
[12:29] Um okay, put close public comment and go
[12:32] to board deliberation. Anyone wish to
[12:35] make a
[12:36] uh summary of
[12:39] anything regarding this project other
[12:41] than
[12:43] they've
[12:44] >> [laughter]
[12:45] >> Okay.
[12:47] Uh same.
[12:48] No, no, I think it's it's very
[12:50] attractive.
[12:51] It's a very attractive spot, sunny spot
[12:53] in the back, and I like the materials.
[12:56] Um it seems I mean it basically blends
[12:59] in the type of houses that we'd like
[13:01] built in Woodside.
[13:03] So uh no, I especially since it's
[13:05] already gone and been approved. I have
[13:08] no questions or concerns. Okay, good.
[13:11] Thank you.
[13:12] Um yeah, from my perspective
[13:15] I'll echo
[13:16] my share commerce's comments. I mean I
[13:18] think it was already
[13:20] heavily scrutinized. I think all the
[13:21] changes I think are are uh easily
[13:25] rationalized. Um
[13:26] I only comment about the lighting seeing
[13:28] just two fixtures on the rear of the
[13:30] structure. I think that's
[13:31] not an issue. So, yeah.
[13:34] Can we have a motion to approve?
[13:37] So moved.
[13:39] I'm not making the motion. I'm I'm I so
[13:42] moved to make the motion.
[13:42] >> Okay.
[13:43] >> [laughter]
[13:44] >> Just clarify in that motion that that
[13:46] would be to adopt all of the recommended
[13:48] conditions of approval as set forth.
[13:50] Correct.
[13:53] I second that motion.
[13:57] Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Comrie?
[13:59] Yes. Member Dalgaav? Yes. Member
[14:01] Sullivan? Yes. And member Middleman is
[14:03] noted recused.
[14:05] Thank you.
[14:08] That was the fastest ever.
[14:10] >> you long to drive [snorts] down the
[14:11] hill.
[14:12] >> [laughter]
[14:15] » It is possible to be a champion.
[14:18] Two questions? I can do four.
[14:21] As a new grandmother, [clears throat]
[14:22] I was saying there's not enough light.
[14:24] That's what I was thinking.
[14:25] >> [laughter]
[14:26] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[14:29] How common How common is it that to have
[14:31] a project expire and have to come back?
[14:34] That's another one just recently
[14:36] occurred.
[14:38] Um It's about the economy.
[14:40] So, yeah, they get letters and they have
[14:42] 2 years in which they have to obtain
[14:44] building permits. There is a provision
[14:46] that they can apply for an extension
[14:48] before the expiration.
[14:50] And it's just unfortunate that they
[14:51] didn't
[14:53] apply for that in enough time.
[14:59] Okay. Moving on to item three.
[15:02] This is 170 Fox Hollow Road.
[15:12] Which we saw in November.
[15:16] Ooh.
[15:18] I'm flying.
[15:20] Yeah.
[15:20] A refreshed.
[15:22] All right.
[15:26] This uh presentation's going to include
[15:28] analysis of a formal design review uh to
[15:31] demolish an existing single-family
[15:32] dwelling, pool, and associated site
[15:35] improvements, and to construct a new
[15:37] single-family main residence with an
[15:39] attached garage and attached studio ADU,
[15:43] um two detached ADUs, a detached
[15:46] trellis, a pool, and associated site
[15:48] improvements on a lot located at 170 Fox
[15:51] Hollow Road.
[15:52] There are two desk items associated with
[15:55] this agenda item. Both of them are um
[15:57] from the same applicant's representative
[15:59] um who brought up some questions
[16:02] regarding increasing landscape screening
[16:05] along the shared property line with
[16:07] their respective client, as well as um
[16:10] potentially evaluating an option to
[16:12] increase the height of uh landscaping
[16:14] walls to further provide that shielding.
[16:21] Uh the subject property is 3.013 acres,
[16:24] and it's located at the end of Fox
[16:26] Hollow Road. The site is currently
[16:27] developed with the single-family main
[16:29] residence, a pool, and
[16:31] associated site improvements. Uh the
[16:33] site slopes upward from Fox Hollow and
[16:35] contains numerous significant trees
[16:37] around the peripheries of the project
[16:39] with a large portion of the trees
[16:41] concentrated on the east, south, and
[16:42] west sides of the existing main
[16:44] residence.
[16:46] >> [clears throat and cough]
[16:47] >> The applicant has proposed construction
[16:49] of a new single-family main residence
[16:50] sited in the approximate center of the
[16:52] property near the general location of
[16:54] the existing main residence.
[16:56] The proposed main residence will include
[16:58] an attached garage and an attached
[17:00] studio ADU, both of which are partially
[17:02] daylighted.
[17:05] The applicant has proposed two um two
[17:08] detached accessory dwelling units, a
[17:10] pool ADU and a guest ADU, one of which
[17:13] is located southwest of the proposed
[17:14] main residence and adjacent to the
[17:16] proposed auto court, which we see down
[17:19] on this lower portion of the slide. And
[17:22] the other of which is located northwest
[17:24] of the proposed main residence and
[17:26] adjacent to the pool and detached
[17:27] trellis. We have the pool in this dash
[17:30] line right here shows the location of
[17:33] that detached trellis.
[17:35] The applicant has proposed relocation of
[17:37] the existing driveway entrance that the
[17:39] driveway entrance is located on the
[17:41] northmost portion of the front property
[17:42] line that adjoins Fox Hollow Road.
[17:45] Previously, it was down on this lower
[17:46] segment, come up a little bit. And
[17:48] they've done the routing on the driveway
[17:50] in such a way that it's avoiding the
[17:52] existing on-site trees in which is the
[17:54] kind of a cluster of existing foliage
[17:56] right here along the frontage.
[18:01] The applicant proposes a main residence
[18:03] with both one-story and two-story
[18:05] elements and attached covered patio
[18:07] spaces adjoining the front and rear
[18:09] building facades.
[18:11] We can see that the residence contains
[18:13] medium to high pitched gable roofs
[18:15] connected by a series of breezeways. So,
[18:17] the building's kind of that L-shape. And
[18:20] the structure features a multitude of
[18:21] patios and decks as well as glazing
[18:23] oriented towards the outdoor living
[18:25] spaces.
[18:28] The proposed accessory dwelling units
[18:29] employ employ gable rooflines as well
[18:31] with medium pitches and they align
[18:34] closely with the style of the main home.
[18:36] The proposed guest ADU consists of a
[18:38] kitchen, living space, bedroom, and one
[18:40] and a full bathroom. And the proposed
[18:42] ADU pool consists of a kitchen, living
[18:45] space, bedroom, and two full bathrooms.
[18:48] The proposed main residence includes a
[18:50] mixed exterior color palette and
[18:52] materials palette consisting of
[18:54] weathered wood siding, rubble stone
[18:55] walls, standing seam metal roofs, patina
[18:57] steel doors and windows, metal railings,
[18:59] and metal cladding.
[19:01] You have some samples right there to
[19:04] everybody's left. That's 170 Fox
[19:06] Hollow's palette. So, you can get a
[19:08] little look at what they look like in
[19:10] person.
[19:11] The proposed color palette includes a
[19:13] variety of earth tone colors and shades
[19:15] of brown, mid tone, and sharp grays and
[19:17] black.
[19:18] The detached ADUs and are proposed to
[19:21] consist of a similar exterior material
[19:23] materials palette to the main residence
[19:25] including wood siding, steel doors and
[19:27] windows, stone veneer, and standing seam
[19:29] metal roofing. The proposed ADUs are in
[19:31] the same color palette as the main
[19:32] as well.
[19:35] On September 15th of last year, this
[19:37] board did see this for conceptual design
[19:40] review. At that time, you commended the
[19:42] applicant for their simple forms as well
[19:46] as their materials palette which you all
[19:48] believed was in strong alignment with
[19:50] the residential design guidelines.
[19:52] However, there were a couple matters
[19:54] that you wanted to see back here at the
[19:55] formal design review phase and which
[19:57] will be going over today. Um, the first
[19:59] request uh was that they contact
[20:02] surrounding neighbors and get some
[20:03] additional input um, and that any
[20:06] neighbor in output was integrated or
[20:10] considered in modifications to the
[20:12] design. Um, and the other request of
[20:15] that nature was that the story poles
[20:17] were erected for you as a board's
[20:19] review. Story poles were erected.
[20:21] Hopefully, everybody got a chance to go
[20:22] and see that. And I'll defer to the
[20:25] project team to give you guys a little
[20:26] bit more of an overview of what that
[20:28] neighborhood outreach looks like from
[20:29] their perspective. Um, from more plan
[20:32] based side, um, you also requested that
[20:35] they consider reducing the potential
[20:37] site grading by minimizing expansive lot
[20:39] areas and retaining more of the existing
[20:41] site topography as well as reducing the
[20:44] size of the proposed two-story tall
[20:46] window elements at the front and rear of
[20:48] the residence to break down light
[20:50] emission a little bit more.
[20:52] On this slide, we can see, um, the
[20:54] difference between what was proposed at
[20:56] conceptual design review and what's
[20:58] being proposed at formal design review
[21:00] relative to those two-story window
[21:02] elements. Um, the applicant has reduced
[21:04] the width of the two-story tall windows
[21:06] on the south wall from 18 ft wide to 8
[21:08] ft 4 in
[21:10] and on the north wall it's gone from 9
[21:12] ft 9 in original proposed to 7 ft
[21:15] 3 in wide.
[21:17] Let me know if you need a second longer
[21:18] to look at this, but it's also
[21:20] in the plans.
[21:22] As it pertains to the grading comments,
[21:28] we did receive a comprehensive grading
[21:29] plan in conjunction with the formal
[21:32] design review providing a little bit
[21:34] more detail on the actual conditions
[21:36] that are being proposed
[21:38] on the site. The applicant has pointed
[21:41] out that a large portion of the grading
[21:44] for expansive flat areas actually
[21:47] utilized existing flat portions of the
[21:49] property. So areas such as the lawn
[21:52] which were originally a bit of a concern
[21:54] from the board's perspective when you
[21:55] look at the grading plan, you can see
[21:56] that the grades are relatively
[21:59] identical, that there's been very little
[22:01] change in the topography and that it's
[22:03] relatively like for like for what they
[22:05] have out on site. They're kind of
[22:06] imploring those existing footprints to
[22:09] take advantage of that for those
[22:10] flattened areas of topography.
[22:13] In addition, they've postulated the
[22:16] house really close
[22:18] to the existing development footprints
[22:20] which helps minimize
[22:22] grading further relative site conditions
[22:25] and the majority of the site grading
[22:28] is in fact concentrated around the new
[22:30] driveway cuts and areas within and
[22:32] directly adjacent to the proposed site
[22:34] improvements.
[22:36] As it pertains to the comments, we
[22:40] ask that you analyze in a little bit of
[22:42] detail to see if they've sufficiently
[22:43] addressed your concerns relative to the
[22:46] site glazing as well as the site
[22:48] grading. As a quick reminder, they are
[22:50] seeking a grading exception for this,
[22:52] but that will be heard with the planning
[22:53] commission to determine if all findings
[22:56] necessary for granting of a grading
[22:57] exception have been met.
[23:00] Members of the project team are required
[23:03] um um
[23:04] are are here in person if you have any
[23:06] outstanding questions. I know we have a
[23:08] member of the architectural team um and
[23:10] we also have the project civil engineer
[23:11] in person. Um so they should be able to
[23:14] provide guidance on both the grading
[23:16] side as well as the architectural side
[23:18] angle. Um but we're happy to answer any
[23:20] questions from staff.
[23:23] Great. Thank you.
[23:25] Does anyone on the board have questions
[23:27] of the building?
[23:30] This is a question about
[23:32] Yes.
[23:37] Mhm.
[23:38] >> [clears throat]
[23:49] » Mhm.
[24:02] Yeah, I can show you the proximity on
[24:04] the actual um grading plans if that
[24:06] would be helpful and then um I think as
[24:09] it pertains to questions regarding their
[24:12] relocation, um I'd be happy to have the
[24:15] civil engineer engage on that uh during
[24:18] the applicant's presentation, but let me
[24:20] pull up the site plans for you to get a
[24:22] good look at where we're getting
[24:23] relocated here.
[24:29] Thanks for your patience. This is
[24:31] loading at its very own pace.
[25:00] » Um, so here we can see
[25:03] relatively
[25:04] uh
[25:05] close alignment between
[25:08] the existing driveway, which you see
[25:10] kind of grayed out down here. They kind
[25:12] of hit points of intersection through
[25:14] this main segment. Um, but we have the
[25:17] new driveway entrance cut over here. And
[25:20] if we um follow along, see that we're uh
[25:24] within the canopy of some of these
[25:26] existing significant trees, in which uh
[25:28] tree protection measures are typically
[25:30] required in conjunction with the um
[25:33] building permit submittals. So, we'll
[25:35] have some tree protection parameters uh
[25:37] integrated at that time. Um,
[25:40] but a lot of their routing is um
[25:43] trying to accommodate cuts around a
[25:45] relatively vegetated part of the
[25:47] property. And uh I think that their
[25:49] civil engineering team will be able to
[25:51] provide us with some guidance as to why
[25:53] they're doing routing in greater detail.
[25:58] What it
[25:59] seems to me from just looking at it that
[26:02] Oh, it seems to me that just looking at
[26:05] it that it was
[26:08] instead of avoiding all these trees, it
[26:10] was pretty much running up right up
[26:12] against them.
[26:14] Uh where the current driveway
[26:16] is, it was down there.
[26:18] Mhm.
[26:19] It's just
[26:20] strange.
[26:22] And I'm I'm thinking you also the main
[26:24] driveway and
[26:25] um one thing sides of the site wall also
[26:28] be on
[26:30] Yeah, so we had um variable site wall
[26:33] heights between 4 and 6 ft shown on the
[26:35] elevation drawings. So, let me pull that
[26:38] up for us real quick to look at.
[26:50] Yes, they're having a um
[26:52] variable height along the length of
[26:54] those landscaping walls. The retaining
[26:56] walls are defined on the grading plans
[26:58] with the landscape walls are between 4
[27:00] and 6 ft variably on the property, but
[27:03] we can most definitely define the exact
[27:05] height at that location if that is
[27:06] prudent.
[27:12] Relative to the code implications, kind
[27:15] of 4 to 6 ft height has relatively
[27:17] identical setback requirements and
[27:20] things of that nature um
[27:22] for our fencing and gate section. So,
[27:25] that shouldn't impact impact site
[27:27] compliance when it ranges between 4 and
[27:29] 6 ft.
[27:31] And would [clears throat] it would it
[27:32] assist the neighbors in trying to block
[27:34] out the car lights as they go around? I
[27:36] don't know exactly where the height
[27:37] variances are, but Mhm. Yeah, you could
[27:40] request that they specify it to that
[27:42] maximum 6 ft and then we'll just do the
[27:45] double check for compliance on that as
[27:47] well. Mhm. Would you mind going back to
[27:49] the windows show before and after
[27:53] normal?
[28:09] Here's the comparison point between what
[28:12] was proposed at the time of CDR and
[28:13] what's being proposed at the time of
[28:15] FDR. Um the
[28:18] windows that were kind of expressly
[28:19] pointed out by the board during CDR and
[28:21] FDR were this window right here and this
[28:24] window right here.
[28:25] These are corresponding reductions.
[28:39] Got it.
[28:45] I'm not seeing a difference on
[28:47] north elevation. Oh,
[28:49] am I missing it? Just the width of the
[28:51] window?
[28:53] The tall window is narrow.
[28:54] >> Dimension change is um
[28:57] a little harder to see relative to the
[28:59] scale. It's 9.9 to 7.3 difference. So,
[29:03] we have a couple feet of difference
[29:05] there, but
[29:05] >> see that one.
[29:07] I said it was a window.
[29:07] >> On elevation might not scale as easily
[29:11] visually. Got it.
[29:13] >> [clears throat]
[29:15] >> You're missing windows on the
[29:17] top and bottom on the south.
[29:19] Yes, on the south.
[29:22] And you have another one?
[29:24] Okay. Any other questions?
[29:26] I have a couple.
[29:28] I'm [clears throat] going back to the
[29:29] vegetation. Do we have objective
[29:30] standards around vegetation management
[29:32] and blocking
[29:34] light from one property to another?
[29:36] We have a component of the residential
[29:38] design guidelines that speaks to
[29:40] landscaping design. It generally
[29:43] discourages creating things such as like
[29:46] dense green walls along property lines
[29:48] given that it looks less natural, but
[29:51] Stacy can correct me if I'm wrong that
[29:53] typically
[29:55] screening via landscaping is a secondary
[29:57] effort for light emissions in the event
[29:59] that, you know,
[30:01] conditions change.
[30:02] Plants aren't permanent. Um
[30:05] so, they're they're not typically
[30:08] primary approach to reduce light
[30:10] emissions given that they are
[30:13] plants to use and can change through
[30:14] time.
[30:15] And that logically makes sense.
[30:18] And then
[30:20] do do we have a
[30:22] Since we brought up grading, um how much
[30:24] did they reduce the grading amount on
[30:26] the previous iteration of plans?
[30:29] Um
[30:30] off the top of my head, I don't recall
[30:31] if we had a comprehensive grading plan
[30:33] in conjunction with CDR because it's not
[30:36] a requirement. Um at the time of CDR,
[30:39] they had indicated to staff verbally
[30:41] that they were going to likely be
[30:43] pursuing a grading exception,
[30:45] um which was kind of our basis for that,
[30:47] but uh correct me if I'm wrong, project
[30:49] team, I don't believe that we had your
[30:51] comprehensive grading plan at that time.
[30:56] And one more question. Can you remind me
[30:57] on what the findings for a grading
[30:59] exception are?
[31:00] Yeah, I can pull up this for us.
[31:02] >> Or you can just give me the section
[31:03] number so I can look it up. Well,
[31:05] actually, I guess everybody would
[31:06] benefit.
[31:08] It's 151
[31:11] 22,
[31:12] I believe. Let me double-check that real
[31:14] quick.
[31:21] Yes, 151 22. Let me grab you the
[31:23] subsection.
[32:04] Here's the three findings associated
[32:06] with the grading exception.
[32:09] So, for your review, if you want to
[32:10] review that separately, it'll be 151 22,
[32:14] um subsection B6.
[32:17] Thank you.
[32:23] It's one other question. When they were
[32:24] doing the calculation of um
[32:27] hardscape, it included 1,300
[32:30] or of overall coverage, it included
[32:32] 1,300 ft of turf, and the turf is being
[32:35] removed, and that helps to reduce the
[32:37] number, and it seemed kind of like that.
[32:42] It's counted as hardscape as as overall
[32:44] coverage, I should say. Sorry. Yeah,
[32:45] artificial turf contributes towards our
[32:48] town's definition of paved area and
[32:49] surface coverage. If it's natural grass,
[32:52] it won't contribute towards that
[32:53] definition. Um only if it's artificial
[32:55] turf.
[32:58] Thank you.
[33:02] Any other questions?
[33:05] Um
[33:07] as it pertains to the desk item,
[33:08] commenting on uh
[33:10] vehicle headlights, could you identify
[33:12] on the plan roughly where
[33:15] you believe that area is to be? Yeah.
[33:19] Is this the parking area at the top of
[33:21] the up of the drive?
[33:34] Good question.
[33:48] My presumption, um based on the fact
[33:50] that they're speaking about retaining
[33:52] the existing tree in conjunction, would
[33:54] be this particular parking locality
[33:57] right here uh as this is an existing
[33:59] tree directly adjacent to those proposed
[34:01] parking spaces, and
[34:03] um
[34:04] so I believe that these are probably the
[34:05] three subject parking locations that
[34:07] they're looking at, but um likely these
[34:10] two are the most pressing given that
[34:11] they identified retention of that
[34:13] existing tree directly adjacent to the
[34:15] area.
[34:19] See it right here. These are the site
[34:21] landscaping walls.
[34:28] And can we see where the six oaks that
[34:30] are being removed are
[34:36] So, you can see um
[34:38] an assortment of the trees proposed for
[34:40] removal
[34:42] um marked in red X's throughout the
[34:45] site. So, we have
[34:47] um
[34:48] four tree removals right here.
[34:51] Um Japanese persimmon up here, and then
[34:54] we have a dish tree well up here um
[34:57] adjacent to the proposed pool. And then,
[35:00] thank you.
[35:03] Um but that's uh Oh, sorry. And here we
[35:06] are inside these uh proposed footprint
[35:08] of the main residence.
[35:11] And then, if we could go back one more
[35:13] time to the new driveway
[35:15] where the story poles are set up, it
[35:18] looks like it would go directly into
[35:20] those two beautiful trees that are
[35:21] there.
[35:22] Is that not the case? Because it sure
[35:25] looks like, unless it's going to take a
[35:27] drastic turn,
[35:30] I mean, maybe we can get to that with
[35:31] the guys. Thanks.
[35:33] >> [clears throat]
[35:45] » So, you can see here, this is one of the
[35:48] larger trees. There's this one here.
[35:49] Those are the probably two closest
[35:51] trees.
[35:53] And then, there's a couple that are over
[35:54] in this area.
[35:56] Um and so, they will have to have an
[35:58] arborist uh
[36:00] on site for the grading when they're
[36:02] under the drip line of the trees.
[36:04] Uh so, they ensure
[36:06] roots are hand cut when they're needed
[36:08] to be cut and certain uh
[36:11] certain requirements like that need to
[36:13] be followed. Um and then, yes, the
[36:15] applicant's team can probably best speak
[36:16] to
[36:17] the
[36:18] >> [clears throat]
[36:18] >> how they plan to protect those trees.
[36:22] And is there any potential when they're
[36:23] looking at running the new the that they
[36:25] could make it closer to the old one to
[36:27] avoid some of the soil removal and
[36:31] I mean something that they yes talked to
[36:33] the applicant about the decision they
[36:35] were probably trying to get a little bit
[36:36] further away from
[36:38] the
[36:39] property on this side um but the
[36:41] applicant can best speak to that.
[36:48] There's I mean there's another cluster
[36:49] here.
[36:51] Um
[36:53] so you'll see all these kind of
[36:55] you know these kind of outlines are
[36:58] where like the the rough kind of drip
[37:00] line is showing right? So they're kind
[37:02] of overlapping.
[37:04] From the
[37:05] >> Looks like the canopy of the first one
[37:06] would definitely be harmed by whatever's
[37:08] going to go on when they're trying to
[37:09] dig there.
[37:10] >> [clears throat]
[37:13] » Maybe we can save these questions for
[37:15] the applicant. Good idea.
[37:18] direct response
[37:19] Otherwise we're all assuming. Um
[37:23] Yeah, no no specific questions for me.
[37:26] Um if that's it.
[37:29] That was the staff presentation.
[37:31] Um
[37:35] So at this point we'd like to invite the
[37:36] applicant uh to make a presentation if
[37:38] you wish.
[37:42] Good afternoon. Ken Winstead. Oh this is
[37:45] tough.
[37:49] Uh I'm the architect for 170 Fox Hollow.
[37:52] Um
[37:54] I'll take your your your comments in
[37:57] order that I heard them. The first one
[37:58] is we did reach out to the neighbors.
[38:01] Sent them the plans. We only heard from
[38:03] the neighbors to the south.
[38:05] Um and their concerns were to reduce the
[38:07] size of that window facing south. So
[38:09] when you were looking at those
[38:10] elevations, the north window was kind of
[38:12] a a result proportionally for us for
[38:15] reducing the southern window. So the
[38:18] southern window did get reduced by half.
[38:21] And I believe that the neighbors are
[38:23] okay with that reduction.
[38:25] Um
[38:26] these neighbors also requested that we
[38:28] add some kind of screening for the
[38:29] headlights.
[38:31] And we are completely open to whatever
[38:33] the board recommends. We're looking at
[38:35] the the standards that are or the
[38:37] residential guidelines.
[38:39] Without the dense screening and and site
[38:41] walls um within the setback, we thought
[38:43] we would leave it to the owners to work
[38:45] it out between themselves.
[38:47] Um but looking for guidance from you on
[38:49] that.
[38:50] Um
[38:51] as far as the driveway goes,
[38:53] our our clients would the the the
[38:56] current gate is very close to the
[38:58] southern neighbor
[38:59] and it's a straight shot up to the
[39:01] driveway. And this is more just kind of
[39:03] this idea of a sinuous driveway going up
[39:05] to the arrival.
[39:07] Um our our clients love those oak trees,
[39:10] so they do not want to disturb them. And
[39:12] I think you're bringing up great points.
[39:13] They're not going to proceed with this
[39:15] if the arborist
[39:16] um can't support what we're doing.
[39:18] Um so this is really more of an
[39:20] aesthetic um driveway move so that
[39:22] they're not, you know, just straight up
[39:24] to the to the entry right when you're uh
[39:27] entering the gate.
[39:29] Um
[39:31] I reviewed the story poles uh
[39:34] I guess a couple weeks ago. We haven't
[39:35] heard any response from neighbors based
[39:37] on those story poles.
[39:39] And the I think the bigger comment about
[39:41] grading
[39:43] is we still have to go to planning
[39:45] commission. The the way I think of the
[39:47] grading on this property is is all of
[39:49] the natural topography is still the
[39:51] natural topography.
[39:53] Um the oak woodland to the east of the
[39:55] house is is the one that we really want
[39:58] to preserve and keep natural.
[40:00] We're we're building this house on the
[40:02] existing flat part of the site. We've
[40:04] moved the main part of the house a bit
[40:06] east and therefore we've kind of have
[40:09] the existing house as a pit because it's
[40:11] got a basement and we're trying to bring
[40:13] the grade up to the natural lawn that
[40:15] used to be there before this current
[40:17] house was built.
[40:18] So, I'd say the lion's share of the
[40:20] grading is because we're filling in that
[40:21] lawn. It's not like we're reshaping the
[40:23] topography. So,
[40:25] in the spirit of of of the the grading
[40:27] guidelines, I would think we're adhering
[40:29] to that because we're not changing the
[40:31] natural topography of the site.
[40:34] So, happy to answer questions.
[40:36] Thanks.
[40:38] Uh just have questions with the app.
[40:41] So, looking at that grading table, there
[40:42] was about 2,400 cubic yards labeled the
[40:45] basement. You're You're saying that
[40:47] that's for the sides of the basement and
[40:49] not to cut
[40:51] or expand the basement? Uh I you know,
[40:53] Jim Toby from Liam Brazeel is here to
[40:55] talk about all of the specifics on what
[40:57] It's It's kind of spread throughout the
[40:59] site, but to fill in that lawn area is
[41:03] where the lion's share of this grading
[41:05] is going. Kind of right where the You
[41:06] see where the existing house is dotted?
[41:09] That's a lot of that is being lifted up.
[41:13] So, it's not like we're reshaping the topography of the surrounding areas.
[41:18] Kind of creating this level courtyard.
[41:25] Given how much the house is moving east
[41:28] to a new structure, it's east. That's
[41:31] today there's a substantial dip for the
[41:34] drive that goes down.
[41:36] Um
[41:38] that's
[41:39] just a
[41:41] perception is there's a fair amount of
[41:43] fill that needs to go in there to
[41:45] Yeah, I guess my my my not my argument,
[41:48] but I I feel like in terms of altering
[41:51] the natural land forms, it's all of this
[41:53] is really happening in the level part of
[41:55] the site. That existing driveway
[41:57] wraps around the front of the house more
[41:59] or less where we're putting the new
[42:00] house.
[42:02] Right.
[42:06] So, did is are you interpreting then
[42:08] where that current drive dips down? Is
[42:10] that the new grade that
[42:12] >> Oh, sorry. You're talking about to go in
[42:13] the garage that
[42:14] >> That where where the curve
[42:15] >> Yeah, that is new. That is a new uh way
[42:18] for us to get to a below grade garage.
[42:20] So, there is some grading going on there
[42:22] for sure.
[42:23] So,
[42:24] yeah, on the absolute right there is a
[42:25] slope.
[42:27] Maybe Jim wants to sort of summarize
[42:30] like all of what's All the soil that's
[42:32] moving around. Sure. Clarifying question
[42:34] for Sage. Does the cut for basements
[42:37] count towards a grading total for a
[42:40] site?
[42:41] No, what you'll see is on page 12 of
[42:44] this staff report, there is a grading
[42:46] table and the areas in bold are what
[42:49] counts towards the grading exception.
[42:51] >> Thank you. Thank you for recalibrating
[42:53] what I should be concerned with.
[42:55] Yeah, so to give you guys a little
[42:56] summary here. Yes, there is a
[42:57] significant amount of grading that's
[42:59] being taken care of with the basement.
[43:01] Um all of that is for the most part
[43:03] being hauled away. Um the grading on
[43:05] site we're getting very close to
[43:07] balancing and that's typically what
[43:08] Woodside wants to see. Um we are over
[43:11] the 1,500 cubic yards, but that's mainly
[43:13] because we're doing cut plus fill.
[43:15] And um right now we're proposing about
[43:18] 1,360 yards of cut and about 1,200 of
[43:21] fill.
[43:22] So, we are getting close to to balancing
[43:24] on the site, but because of the
[43:25] topography and trying to keep the
[43:27] natural topography and the trees and
[43:29] everything, we're not going to we're we have a small amount of about,
[43:32] you know, 150, 160 yards that we're not
[43:35] anticipating balancing the site grading,
[43:38] which is the typical way Woodside wants
[43:39] to see it. Um but you could see here by
[43:42] looking at some of the dirt designs that
[43:44] we have, specifically even the driveway
[43:47] that's going down to the lower garage,
[43:48] that is literally a vertical wall that's
[43:50] not going to be the the little section
[43:52] that goes down to the lower section is
[43:54] being cut, but we're not proposing to do
[43:55] any grading around it. In other words,
[43:57] we're not grading down.
[43:59] It's literally just a way to get down
[44:00] below. It's not going to be filling or changing the contours around that
[44:04] area. So, as you're driving in and
[44:07] what's going on in front of the house is
[44:08] virtually the same as what's there now.
[44:10] We are doing some grading in the back
[44:11] with the back patio, but for the most
[44:13] part, everything in the front is kind of
[44:15] staying exactly the same as what we have
[44:17] right now.
[44:20] That's helpful.
[44:24] Sorry, what?
[44:26] It's really just the new cut for the
[44:27] driveway. Yeah, so the new driveway is
[44:29] going to be cutting down. You have to
[44:30] put a section in there of, you know, to
[44:33] get base rock down there and the new
[44:34] asphalt or whatever final material we
[44:37] end up putting on there. That takes a
[44:39] good section out of, you know, what we
[44:41] have to grade for to get this to work.
[44:43] So, that gets counted as that grading
[44:45] number even though the final grade is
[44:47] kind of the same as what it was before.
[44:49] We have to provide, you know, a section
[44:52] for that driveway to be at fire trucks
[44:53] and cars and delivery vehicles and
[44:55] everything up there.
[45:00] Okay.
[45:04] Any other questions for uh Mr. or the
[45:06] applicant?
[45:09] Okay. No.
[45:13] One question.
[45:15] The concern about
[45:17] the light on children from driving in
[45:20] and out,
[45:21] is that a existing concern with the way
[45:24] the property is currently?
[45:27] Or with the new development, is it would
[45:29] it become worse for the part Are you
[45:32] talking about the headlight issue?
[45:33] >> issue, is That is a new issue because
[45:35] the cars currently don't park directly
[45:38] at the property. The new arrangement of
[45:40] parking spaces is kind of directed
[45:43] specifically at a particular room that
[45:45] the neighbors have brought up. So, we're
[45:47] trying to shield that. It's not like we
[45:48] don't want to shield it. It's just
[45:50] looking for guidance. Can we hedge it?
[45:51] Can we put a wall?
[45:54] The finished grade of that area will be
[45:55] a basically identical
[45:57] >> identical.
[45:57] >> It is identical.
[45:58] >> Yeah. Oh, in theory today if a car were
[46:00] turning around on
[46:01] >> It would still happen the same
[46:03] condition. As Julian as Julian is
[46:05] showing you right here, you can see
[46:06] where the car comes in. We're
[46:08] maintaining the tree right there, but
[46:09] we're allowing parking on either side of
[46:11] it. That were if wall Yeah, cars are
[46:13] parking directly towards the neighbor
[46:15] right there. And so that's where we're
[46:16] posing a wall.
[46:23] And one last one, on the lighting plan,
[46:25] when looking at the H2 fixture, which
[46:27] looks to be a tree uplight potentially,
[46:29] and I can't differentiate the symbols on
[46:32] the plan. Are there a lot of them?
[46:37] No uplights. Uh they're
[46:39] It's your H2.
[46:42] H L D Well,
[46:45] Ah.
[46:47] Oh, it's just the way it's designed.
[46:49] Well, it's a tree light, basically,
[46:51] right?
[46:54] Yeah, in the actual lighting legend,
[46:56] they've specified that they're going to
[46:58] be mounted directly downlit, um and in
[47:02] earlier phases, I believe we actually
[47:05] discussed
[47:05] >> trellises and things like that, not to
[47:07] go up to trees.
[47:15] We should have flipped that picture
[47:16] over.
[47:25] Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
[47:26] residential guidelines specify no
[47:29] uplighting. Yeah, so we'd definitely
[47:30] make sure there's no uplighting,
[47:33] uh
[47:34] no uplighting, and then no uh lights in
[47:36] trees that are downlit. And then um with
[47:39] the up and seeing Yeah, so this is a
[47:40] spec sheet, and it's showing that it's
[47:42] on an angle, but those are uh these are
[47:46] intended for the trellis. So, it's
[47:47] pretty common that you have those in the
[47:49] trellis that can maneuver a little bit,
[47:51] but it's the specification cut sheet
[47:54] that kind of depicts it like this.
[47:57] Install the point down.
[47:59] Thank you.
[48:01] Good. Any other questions?
[48:04] Done.
[48:07] Okay.
[48:09] Um thank you. Thank you.
[48:11] Um
[48:13] So, with that, open up
[48:15] public hearing.
[48:17] Does anyone in the room or anyone online
[48:18] who wishes to make a comment on this
[48:20] project?
[48:21] As a reminder for those online, please
[48:23] use the raise hand feature if you'd like
[48:24] to make a comment.
[48:30] I see no one in the room. And there are
[48:32] no raised hands.
[48:34] Well, that close public comment um and
[48:36] open up to board deliberation.
[48:41] Who'd like to kick us off?
[48:45] Me? All right.
[48:48] Um
[48:50] Yeah, I mean, no significant changes uh
[48:52] design-wise from the material
[48:54] perspective or massing of that since the
[48:56] uh
[48:57] conceptual design review. Um with
[48:59] regards to feedback provided at CDR with
[49:02] regards to window sizes, I think it's um
[49:05] adequate, the change that's been made.
[49:07] Um I think any any reduction in that
[49:10] substantial glazing is an improvement.
[49:12] Um
[49:14] I think the
[49:17] very, very specific details and plan for
[49:20] grading for planning commission would be
[49:22] useful
[49:23] um to help um
[49:25] arrive at a conclusion and a finding. Um
[49:30] I think the other thing as it pertains
[49:32] to the desk item that came in about tree
[49:34] protection, I have just uh personal
[49:36] note, I think tree protection as
[49:39] specified for my own project was
[49:40] inadequate in scale and resulted in the
[49:42] loss of a
[49:44] coastal oak that was 150 years old. So,
[49:47] I echo the neighbor who's saying,
[49:49] "Please, please, please make sure your
[49:51] tree protection is above and beyond what
[49:53] the what is required.
[49:55] Um
[49:56] Other than that, no, I think um I think
[49:58] all my concerns from CDR have been met.
[50:03] Could we potentially put some sort of a
[50:04] tree grove in near to help the neighbor
[50:07] with the light and get that in the
[50:09] record, so to speak?
[50:14] Well, I mean, if that can be solved with
[50:15] a solid wall, I think
[50:19] I'm not sure.
[50:21] Okay. I thought I heard them say that
[50:23] they wanted to propose a wall.
[50:28] I I do find that um especially since
[50:31] you're not going to have much
[50:32] construction on the other 80 new lot
[50:34] property.
[50:35] That side of the property that
[50:37] you guys were able to work with the
[50:39] neighbors down instead of waiting till
[50:41] the thing
[50:42] um that gets stated. So, certainly, you
[50:44] know, you could pick whatever tree that
[50:46] you like, but you know, a few oaks and
[50:49] screen quite a bit, and if they were
[50:51] planted now, and then later,
[50:53] by the time you finish, they might not
[50:55] be able to see that much of the project.
[50:58] So, um so, at least along that left of
[51:01] the neighbor's fence,
[51:08] No questions or concerns for me. Okay.
[51:13] Just to reiterate
[51:15] that I feel um
[51:16] Oh, just to reiterate, I I I feel
[51:18] concerned about the trees on the new
[51:21] driveway. Um and that if the planning
[51:24] commission can take a very close look at
[51:26] that, because it it did seem like you
[51:29] had some drainage coming down with
[51:30] rocks. So, are you going to have to
[51:32] rework that to work the driveway in? I'm
[51:35] just not sure how that's all going to
[51:37] come together. Um
[51:40] that um just to have planning take an
[51:43] extra close look at protecting those
[51:45] trees.
[51:46] What specifically would planning
[51:48] commission
[51:50] take into consideration there
[51:52] with that feedback? We really rely on
[51:54] the arborist reports.
[51:56] Um they are the ones who would provide
[51:58] recommendations
[51:59] and those are what should be followed.
[52:08] So, this
[52:09] I'm confused.
[52:11] You have a desk on them saying that
[52:12] their auto court has a wall proposed,
[52:15] but the height wasn't specified. So, is
[52:17] there a wall or is there not a wall?
[52:19] There is a wall currently proposed. Um
[52:21] they've shown that their landscaping
[52:23] walls uh for their elevation that they
[52:26] provided for landscaping walls are
[52:28] ranging in elevation between 4 and 6 ft
[52:31] throughout the property. Um and they've
[52:33] specified the actual elevations of their
[52:38] retaining walls on property. Um however,
[52:41] they've put 4 to 6 ft um on the actual
[52:46] elevation drawing for those landscaping
[52:47] walls, which from a code implication is
[52:49] looked at kind of identically, but if
[52:51] you want us to call out point-on-point
[52:54] what that elevation is for that
[52:55] landscaping wall, even though
[52:57] um the code implications are the same, I
[53:00] just they probably just didn't want to
[53:01] congest plans if I presume, but um
[53:06] uh if you want like a specification of
[53:08] that exact height and location.
[53:10] And then we can
[53:12] uh if the board like can add a condition
[53:14] that just requires it to be 6 ft tall.
[53:17] That's good.
[53:22] Um yeah, 6 ft seems excessive for
[53:26] protecting against car headlights.
[53:27] >> It could be it could be lower. I guess
[53:29] you know, you could say 6 ft is the 6 ft
[53:31] is the maximum it could be by code.
[53:34] Okay.
[53:36] I think a 4 ft wall is fine.
[53:40] I'm going to be prescriptive. It looked
[53:41] like they were tapered. Mhm. Okay.
[53:46] All right. Uh Sage, have you uh So,
[53:49] yeah, so this is a formal design review.
[53:52] Um and so this is similar to the last
[53:54] item in which
[53:55] um
[53:56] this one though will be going to the
[53:57] planning commission for final action.
[53:59] So, there's a number of recommended
[54:01] conditions of approval.
[54:02] Um
[54:03] I haven't heard anything that would
[54:05] necessarily require a change in that uh
[54:07] with the last comments here
[54:10] noting that the wall between 4 and 6 ft
[54:12] should be sufficient, which is what
[54:13] they're noting on their plans. So, if
[54:16] the board is finds that no further
[54:18] changes are necessary, um there can be a
[54:22] motion to uh recommend approval of the
[54:24] project subject to the conditions of
[54:26] approval in the staff report.
[54:29] Just
[54:30] uh
[54:31] I'd like to hear an opinion from the
[54:33] board with regard to the changes in the
[54:34] window. That was the most significant
[54:36] change, so do you feel it's been
[54:38] satisfied, too?
[54:40] Yep. Yes, absolutely. Yeah.
[54:44] Okay.
[54:48] It was a cautious nod. So,
[54:50] >> [laughter]
[54:50] >> It's the cautious guy. The architect's
[54:52] smiling. Um
[54:54] good. So, um with that summary, [snorts]
[54:58] uh a motion to approve
[55:01] um
[55:02] satisfying all the previous
[55:04] >> [snorts]
[55:05] >> uh previously given feedback and that
[55:08] reinforcing points about the
[55:11] uh wall for
[55:12] protection against headlights car
[55:14] headlights in that parking area
[55:15] specifically.
[55:16] Um
[55:19] and then I guess next step is Arbor's
[55:21] report and then to the planning
[55:22] commission.
[55:24] Good. Sounds good.
[55:25] >> So, that's the motion.
[55:27] You make it.
[55:27] >> I guess I did.
[55:28] >> I second it.
[55:30] Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Kamrar?
[55:33] Yes. Member DelGavio? Yes. Member
[55:35] Middleman? Yes. Member Sullivan? Yes.
[55:39] Thank you.
[55:51] Oh, okay.
[55:58] So, moving on to this is item four and
[56:02] member D'Amelio is recused. Are you
[56:05] going to return for
[56:09] No, it's okay. Early early information.
[56:15] » [laughter]
[56:17] » All right.
[56:18] Good night.
[56:19] >> Thank you, Pat.
[56:24] » [laughter]
[56:25] >> Uh so, item four, 115 Romero Road. Okay,
[56:29] this is the last time you have to hear
[56:30] me talk tonight.
[56:30] >> Gillian's up again.
[56:32] >> [laughter]
[56:33] >> All right. Um we're now going to review
[56:35] a quick conceptual design review
[56:37] application for proposal to partially
[56:39] demolish an existing residence and
[56:41] demolish an existing pool and to
[56:43] construct an addition to the
[56:45] single-family home including new
[56:47] trellises on the rear side, uh
[56:49] construction of two new accessory
[56:50] structures, relocation of a swimming
[56:53] pool and associated site improvements on
[56:55] a property located at 115 Romero Road.
[56:59] Um as of the start of this meeting,
[57:01] there are no desk items associated with
[57:03] this agenda item and we will determine
[57:05] if the project is exempt from or subject
[57:07] to CEQA during the formal design review
[57:09] phase of this project.
[57:12] Um [clears throat] the subject property
[57:13] is .93 acres and it's located on the
[57:16] corner of um Romero Road and Cañada
[57:19] Road. The site is currently developed as
[57:21] we can see here on the right side with a
[57:24] single-family residence, a pool, um a
[57:27] guest house, a driveway, sheds, and
[57:29] associated site improvements. The
[57:31] existing residence is located uh at the
[57:34] approximate center of the property with
[57:35] the existing pool site in northeast of
[57:37] the main residence.
[57:39] The site is minimally sloped with
[57:40] pockets of 35% slopes along the north
[57:43] side property line and throughout the
[57:45] southern half of the property.
[57:47] The site contains numerous significant
[57:49] trees on the peripheries of the
[57:50] property.
[57:52] The applicant has proposed a partial
[57:54] demolition, which we can see here
[57:57] little difficult to see on here, but
[57:58] it's x'd out elements
[58:01] on the areas adjacent to the main
[58:03] residence.
[58:05] They're pretty much getting a
[58:06] like-for-like rebuild right over them
[58:08] with a small addition,
[58:10] but
[58:11] this will continue to take place at the
[58:13] relative center of the property adjacent
[58:15] to that main home. And then in addition
[58:18] to those main residence additions, we
[58:21] have two new accessory structures, this
[58:25] new gym, which you see on the top of the
[58:26] plan set, as well as a new office
[58:29] structure, which we are seeing down
[58:31] closer to the bottom. The new swimming
[58:33] pool is in a close overlay net with the
[58:36] old swimming pool, and then it's a
[58:38] little bit hidden, but their new spa is
[58:40] right up here. And then they are all
[58:42] proposing relocation of an existing
[58:45] generator that exists on site.
[58:47] That's proposed right here adjacent to
[58:50] this new office space B.
[58:54] Um the project plans include removal of
[58:57] five trees within and directly adjacent
[59:00] to the
[59:01] was work. We can kind of see this
[59:03] cluster up here. Proposed removal as
[59:05] well as those directly adjacent to this
[59:08] new office structure. That's also
[59:10] proposed out. And the proposed project
[59:14] will retain the existing driveway
[59:17] entrance along Romero, and there's no
[59:19] modifications to the driveway proposed
[59:21] at this time.
[59:24] Um
[59:27] quite a few elevations here that we need
[59:29] to look at to see where these proposed
[59:31] uh additions are taking place. So, let
[59:32] me know if you need me to stop at any
[59:34] point. We can look at them in a little
[59:35] bit of greater detail, but I'll just
[59:37] kind of thumb through while we're going.
[59:39] Um the applicant has proposed one-story
[59:41] additions to the main residence along
[59:42] the front and rear building facades. The
[59:45] additions to the main residence are
[59:46] proposed to match the architectural
[59:47] character of the existing home using
[59:50] similar roof lines, colors, and
[59:52] materials, and that will generate
[59:54] minimal impact to the existing main
[59:56] residence's appearance. The home will
[59:58] maintain its existing medium-pitched
[1:00:00] gable roof lines, but will include a new
[1:00:03] trellis, [snorts]
[1:00:04] um which we can see here, uh as well as
[1:00:07] a new small cupola, which we can see
[1:00:10] here on this proposed elevation. It's
[1:00:12] going to bring the height up, but it's
[1:00:13] not going to be a little story.
[1:00:16] Um the proposed main residence um
[1:00:19] will continue to use the existing color
[1:00:21] materials palette, which includes stucco
[1:00:24] walls, clay tiles, uh stained wood
[1:00:26] windows and doors, copper gutters, and
[1:00:28] copper chimney caps. The existing main
[1:00:30] residence uses a color and materials
[1:00:32] palette including shades of white and
[1:00:34] brown.
[1:00:36] We have two new accessory structures, as
[1:00:38] I mentioned, in conjunction with this
[1:00:39] project, both of which employ gable roof
[1:00:41] lines with moderate pitches and uh
[1:00:43] simple understated forms. The proposed
[1:00:45] accessory structure materials include
[1:00:47] stone exterior walls,
[1:00:49] um
[1:00:50] and wood windows and doors, clay roof
[1:00:53] tiles, and copper gutters, very similar
[1:00:55] to the existing main residence with the
[1:00:56] exception of the finishes on um the
[1:00:59] walls, which are meant to distinguish it
[1:01:01] from the existing home.
[1:01:03] Prior to formal design review, the
[1:01:05] applicant shall clearly call out all of
[1:01:07] their selected colors in conjunction
[1:01:09] with the accessory uh dwelling, sorry,
[1:01:11] the accessory structures.
[1:01:14] Um relatively quick one here, but we do
[1:01:16] have the project architect in person. If
[1:01:19] you uh
[1:01:20] would like to inquire with any further
[1:01:21] details, but otherwise happy to provide
[1:01:23] some guidance from staff perspective if
[1:01:25] you have any additional questions.
[1:01:27] Thank you.
[1:01:29] Uh any questions with staff at this
[1:01:31] point? Feel like I just did an
[1:01:33] optometrist exam. Existing to the
[1:01:36] proposed house is mainly that
[1:01:38] the 10 ft addition on top of the move
[1:01:40] and a little bit more uh unchored on the
[1:01:43] side in the front. Yeah, so if you can
[1:01:46] see here we have um they're they're kind
[1:01:49] of sporadically spread throughout the
[1:01:51] house. Um everything in this darker gray
[1:01:55] color shows you an area in which an
[1:01:58] addition is taking place in uh
[1:02:00] conjunction with this proposed scope of
[1:02:02] work. So there's a quite a few of them,
[1:02:04] but they are all relatively small in
[1:02:07] size, so
[1:02:09] minimal visual impact, but um if you
[1:02:11] want to see any specific elevation, see
[1:02:13] kind of this modifications, happy to
[1:02:15] pull them up. You can see like for
[1:02:16] example, this area um it's just getting
[1:02:19] finished with a new wall. It's an
[1:02:20] existing covered patio. Um on the front
[1:02:23] here we have a small covered patio
[1:02:25] addition that we can see um this is
[1:02:27] coming out with a new trellis in the
[1:02:29] back. So all are relatively small in
[1:02:32] footprint. There's just quite a few of
[1:02:33] them.
[1:02:35] Thank you.
[1:02:38] Remind me again why set side setback is
[1:02:41] 21 ft?
[1:02:42] Oh, so that was um just a callout of the
[1:02:46] existing
[1:02:49] 8 ft
[1:02:50] setback right there. Um but the setback
[1:02:53] for structures under 17 ft in this
[1:02:56] particular zoning designation is uh 20.
[1:02:59] ft? Mhm.
[1:03:01] And they
[1:03:03] This is less
[1:03:04] >> kind of on this
[1:03:06] uh right here.
[1:03:10] This is less of a project question, more
[1:03:11] of a process question. What triggered
[1:03:13] this to come in front of us? Yeah, so
[1:03:15] this falls in the boundaries of a town
[1:03:18] designated scenic corridor
[1:03:20] given that it's a long Kinyon Road which
[1:03:23] is a town designated scenic road. So
[1:03:26] projects in excess of a thousand square
[1:03:28] feet cumulatively will go to ASRB in
[1:03:31] this particular scenic corridor's
[1:03:33] designation.
[1:03:38] Okay, any other questions?
[1:03:42] Nope.
[1:03:43] >> [clears throat]
[1:03:44] >> Yep. All right. That concludes uh staff
[1:03:47] presentation and invite the applicant
[1:03:51] make a presentation if you wish. Um I
[1:03:53] wasn't Or just ask answer questions.
[1:03:56] Yeah, if you have any specific questions
[1:03:58] I'd be happy to answer. Okay.
[1:04:01] But I think I think uh
[1:04:03] Jillian kind of laid out kind of the
[1:04:05] scope of work very well and so I have really nothing to add
[1:04:10] other than what she's presented.
[1:04:13] But happy to take any specific
[1:04:15] questions.
[1:04:16] I commend you for putting in the last
[1:04:18] floor tiles. I've never yet one of them
[1:04:20] involved in
[1:04:21] exceptionally well. You know about the
[1:04:23] Kinyon that have been double stewarded
[1:04:25] so we really appreciate that. So one
[1:04:27] question I've always had um
[1:04:30] I could pull it What How do you get up
[1:04:33] there? How do you clean the windows? How
[1:04:35] do you
[1:04:36] >> [laughter]
[1:04:37] >> Just I was I've been wondering cuz I've
[1:04:38] seen two or three lately
[1:04:40] and I'm
[1:04:41] >> You have staff. I I I know it's a design
[1:04:43] element but um
[1:04:45] is it usable for anything?
[1:04:47] Oh well, it's it's designed because the
[1:04:49] house is rather dark in that in that
[1:04:51] area of the house and the architecture
[1:04:53] just kind of needs a
[1:04:55] an exclamation point in it. Yeah. I've
[1:04:58] always wondered what's inside of that.
[1:05:00] Oh. Oh, how do you get up there? Oh, a
[1:05:02] ladder. Ladder so it's really a skylight
[1:05:05] in there.
[1:05:06] Yeah, it's a skylight in a in a Yes, in
[1:05:08] a vertical
[1:05:10] Mhm.
[1:05:13] design element.
[1:05:17] Good.
[1:05:19] Okay.
[1:05:21] Thank you.
[1:05:30] Yeah, so my only observation is well,
[1:05:32] thank you for installing story poles.
[1:05:34] Always immensely helpful in terms of
[1:05:37] appreciating the impact. Um not just for
[1:05:39] us, but of course people driving up and
[1:05:41] down the street. And as it relates to
[1:05:43] that, um one thing I noticed is that the
[1:05:45] office story poles of the roofline of
[1:05:47] the office are visible from the street.
[1:05:50] Um as you drive or walk down Romero.
[1:05:53] Um that's the one area I have some
[1:05:55] reservations about the impact that this
[1:05:58] is going to have
[1:05:59] um on the existing neighbors on that
[1:06:01] street as they uh
[1:06:03] progress up and down. Um
[1:06:06] I think
[1:06:07] I yes, the structure is allowed to go
[1:06:09] where it is, but I think anything that
[1:06:11] could be done with regard to fencing or
[1:06:14] plants uh that would might further
[1:06:15] screen that it would be useful. Um I'm
[1:06:18] not suggesting we revisit placement of
[1:06:20] that. Um the one thing I couldn't
[1:06:23] appreciate on site is given the
[1:06:25] elevation of the office, which looks to
[1:06:27] be about 4 ft above the rest of the
[1:06:29] grade, how Wait, I couldn't see from the
[1:06:32] renderings quite how that was going to
[1:06:33] be resolved.
[1:06:35] Um I don't know if Jillian has a good
[1:06:37] illustration to help me understand that.
[1:06:41] I'm not really sure I'm following your
[1:06:43] question. So the the office structure,
[1:06:46] the new office structure sits about 4 ft
[1:06:48] above the rest The grade there is about
[1:06:50] 4 ft above the rest of the grade.
[1:06:52] Yes. [clears throat] I just I don't know
[1:06:54] if you were planning on changing that in
[1:06:57] any way or you're just going to build on
[1:06:58] top of that. Well, I think the present
[1:07:01] level is between I think 109 and 110.
[1:07:05] Okay.
[1:07:06] >> But that that spans the the width of the
[1:07:09] office. And so we're going at 1 109.5.
[1:07:12] We just split the difference. Right. But
[1:07:14] that 109.5 is like relative to the grade
[1:07:17] of the rest of the house it's got to be
[1:07:19] 107 I'm guessing 106.5.
[1:07:22] I'm sorry I didn't hear that. So the the
[1:07:24] grade of the existing house Oh is that
[1:07:26] about 103 Oh okay. .5 And the the
[1:07:30] rationale the reason the client
[1:07:32] wanted because the view from up there
[1:07:34] you get to see all the hills. Okay. That
[1:07:36] was the rationale to put the office
[1:07:38] there. That's a good rationale. Yeah.
[1:07:52] No we haven't but we can certainly
[1:07:53] follow up this week and and gain any
[1:07:57] input that you would like. I wasn't
[1:07:59] aware that that was part of this process
[1:08:02] at this point but we certainly entertain
[1:08:05] or move forward with
[1:08:07] and get them involved.
[1:08:08] >> anytime you put up story polls you get
[1:08:10] unsolicited
[1:08:11] feedbacks.
[1:08:15] Sure.
[1:08:17] So I just want to reiterate it is not
[1:08:21] required to have neighborhood outreach.
[1:08:23] And so it's helpful but all property
[1:08:26] owners within 300 ft do get notified of
[1:08:28] the project of the hearing as well as
[1:08:30] the story poles are
[1:08:32] and but um yes we always encourage
[1:08:33] people to do neighborhood outreach.
[1:08:37] So should we Thank you for the move
[1:08:38] forward and notify the neighbors within
[1:08:40] the 300 ft radius and It's always nice
[1:08:43] to talk to the neighbors.
[1:08:44] Sure. Yeah at some point even my client
[1:08:47] was saying we've got to it would be nice
[1:08:49] to let everyone know um
[1:08:52] but at this point moving forward we can
[1:08:55] certainly do that easily.
[1:08:57] >> [clears throat]
[1:08:58] >> And then kind of get back to Julian
[1:08:59] about any feedback we do get. Okay.
[1:09:04] Um
[1:09:05] Yeah, but I mean from
[1:09:07] I mean yeah, I've no other questions um
[1:09:09] regarding
[1:09:11] the site designs.
[1:09:13] Just to clarify though, it's a
[1:09:14] suggestion, not a
[1:09:16] I'm sorry.
[1:09:17] >> Marine Outreach is a suggestion, not a
[1:09:18] requirement. Well, I think it's a Like
[1:09:21] you said, at some point we were going to
[1:09:22] do it, and maybe at this point it might
[1:09:24] make the process moving forward easier
[1:09:26] for everyone.
[1:09:30] Okay.
[1:09:31] Any other questions?
[1:09:34] Nope.
[1:09:35] No. No.
[1:09:37] Okay, with that I'll close uh up the
[1:09:38] presentation. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:09:41] Um see if there's any No one in the
[1:09:43] room, so is there anyone online
[1:09:46] from the public who wishes to make a
[1:09:47] comment on this project? We do have a
[1:09:49] raised hand from Van Jepson. I'm going
[1:09:51] to give you permission to talk.
[1:09:55] Uh good afternoon ASOB. This is Van
[1:09:57] Jepson. I live on
[1:09:59] La Questa Way. I'm a property owner
[1:10:01] within 300 ft. Can you hear me okay?
[1:10:04] Yep.
[1:10:05] Yeah, so the concept design review is
[1:10:08] fine by my eye. The only question I have
[1:10:11] is the generator, if there's an
[1:10:12] enclosure around the generator that
[1:10:15] would keep sound from, I'll say, coming
[1:10:17] my way. I'm just up the hill across from
[1:10:21] Marrow on La Questa, so
[1:10:24] Um that's the first question. I have a
[1:10:25] second question.
[1:10:28] So, um
[1:10:30] if I could ask another question
[1:10:31] regarding that generator, [snorts] so
[1:10:34] Uh there's a
[1:10:35] the generator kind of is bounded by the
[1:10:39] office, and then two walls on either
[1:10:41] side. So, there is one complete open
[1:10:43] side, but we could certainly of course
[1:10:46] enclose the entire structure. We were
[1:10:48] working off of the previous
[1:10:50] um design from the generator
[1:10:54] that was located there a couple of years
[1:10:56] ago. So, we were just mimicking what
[1:10:58] that present design is and that's how we
[1:11:00] came up with this one.
[1:11:01] >> Are you relocating the generator as part
[1:11:03] of this? Yes.
[1:11:04] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:11:05] >> Yes. So, which direction is it moving?
[1:11:07] Further?
[1:11:07] >> Right now at on the site plan, the the
[1:11:10] generator is in orange on your screen.
[1:11:13] Right now, the present generator is I
[1:11:15] think there's even a um
[1:11:18] uh it's right basically where it butts
[1:11:21] the new office.
[1:11:22] >> Yep. Yes. So, we're putting it it's in
[1:11:24] front of the office on this plan and
[1:11:26] we're relocating it to the rear of the
[1:11:29] office. Okay. Yep.
[1:11:32] All right. So, your first piece of
[1:11:34] unsolicited feedback is about
[1:11:37] Grace.
[1:11:37] >> Okay.
[1:11:38] >> [laughter]
[1:11:40] >> Is there another question for you guys?
[1:11:41] Yes, I do. Thank you. So, um I'm
[1:11:44] concerned about the construction vehicle
[1:11:47] parking.
[1:11:48] Romero is a very tight street. The
[1:11:51] question is it going to be on site? And
[1:11:53] here's why, cuz I live in La Questa and
[1:11:56] there's currently two construction
[1:11:59] projects in La Questa, 211 La Questa and
[1:12:02] 111 La Questa and there's about 30 cars
[1:12:04] and trucks on the daily basis that are
[1:12:07] parked along the
[1:12:08] road limiting to one lane and when they
[1:12:12] have deliveries, sheetrock or whatever
[1:12:14] stone,
[1:12:15] um there's no passage. Um and then
[1:12:18] sometimes I have to wait 5 minutes for
[1:12:20] that to occur. Now,
[1:12:21] um my question here is if it's not going
[1:12:24] to be on site and if it's not going to
[1:12:26] be on the I'll call it one lane Romero
[1:12:28] road, is it going to be on Cañada Lane?
[1:12:32] So, that lane goes between Romero and La
[1:12:35] Questa Way and that is also very narrow
[1:12:38] with curbs and there's really no place
[1:12:40] to park. I've seen construction vehicles
[1:12:43] parked there, but it makes
[1:12:46] um it very difficult for access. So,
[1:12:49] it's a question generally. Thank you.
[1:12:51] Sure. So, yes, we can speak to that. All
[1:12:54] construction staging and materials and
[1:12:57] parking are all supposed to be on site.
[1:12:59] That will be the same case with this
[1:13:01] project. Sometimes sites have
[1:13:03] constraints in which sometimes [snorts]
[1:13:05] people have to carpool into the site.
[1:13:07] So, and then regarding the existing
[1:13:09] conditions that you've raised,
[1:13:11] if there are those conditions, please
[1:13:13] contact the building department. They
[1:13:15] can go out there and remind the
[1:13:17] contractors that all of that parking is
[1:13:19] supposed to be on site. Okay, we'll do.
[1:13:21] Thank you.
[1:13:23] And a formal staging plan which requires
[1:13:26] Yeah, we we definitely require it with
[1:13:29] large projects. Sometimes with smaller
[1:13:31] projects, it's just conditioned.
[1:13:33] But yeah, we can definitely require it,
[1:13:34] especially when you get into tighter
[1:13:36] situations.
[1:13:37] Like for example, like the Glenns, it's
[1:13:39] very important that we see exactly what
[1:13:42] they're going to do on a tight site. So,
[1:13:44] it's easy enough for us to have a
[1:13:45] condition like that on this project.
[1:13:49] Mhm. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, no, they
[1:13:50] should not be blocking the trail.
[1:13:53] You know, anything like that on Cantera
[1:13:54] Road.
[1:13:55] Remind me, do we have
[1:13:57] objective standards on generator
[1:13:59] enclosures in the code? There are for
[1:14:03] those that require emergency generators
[1:14:06] exceptions. This does not.
[1:14:09] I see. So, if it needed an exception to
[1:14:11] go into the setback, that's where we
[1:14:13] have objective standards. But when it's
[1:14:14] not within the setback, there are no
[1:14:16] such standards. Understood.
[1:14:21] Okay.
[1:14:22] Any other public comment? There are no
[1:14:24] There are raised hands.
[1:14:25] Thank you.
[1:14:26] And all right, without a closed public
[1:14:28] comment and move to board
[1:14:32] deliberation. Anyone like to
[1:14:34] summarize their thoughts?
[1:14:39] Oh, I would like to given all the things we've mentioned
[1:14:44] just recently about staging, parking,
[1:14:46] and
[1:14:47] that
[1:14:49] we move this on to staff.
[1:14:54] Formal.
[1:14:57] Yeah. Yeah. I I'm I'm commend the
[1:14:59] applicant for
[1:15:01] making me have to look twice to
[1:15:03] understand what was going on with
[1:15:05] changing what was on site. It it's very
[1:15:07] elegant. I like new touches are nice.
[1:15:10] The accessory structures are well
[1:15:12] placed. I would encourage
[1:15:15] some kind of
[1:15:17] neighborly sound reduction on the
[1:15:18] generator despite not being required.
[1:15:21] Right?
[1:15:22] Um definitely not required
[1:15:24] recommendation.
[1:15:26] Yeah. I I have no problem moving this on
[1:15:28] to formal with staff.
[1:15:31] Uh yeah, no questions or comments. I
[1:15:32] agree. Okay.
[1:15:34] Yeah, I mean I echo the comments of my
[1:15:37] fellow members. So, we move to formal
[1:15:40] with staff.
[1:15:41] Um I think it's elegantly done. Well,
[1:15:43] like nice little details here and there
[1:15:45] in terms of expanding various
[1:15:47] structures.
[1:15:49] Um the only thing I'll I'll bring up is
[1:15:51] the again the
[1:15:53] uh placement of the office and right at
[1:15:56] the setback, which I think
[1:15:58] um I would anticipate there will be some
[1:16:00] unsolicited feedback from
[1:16:02] neighbors regarding that. So, anything
[1:16:04] that could be done to further screen
[1:16:06] that I think would be helpful. But
[1:16:08] beyond that I think
[1:16:09] that pretty much summarizes our motion.
[1:16:11] Um so, what I've heard is that
[1:16:13] the the applicant would be encouraged um
[1:16:16] to put some screening between the office
[1:16:17] and Romero Road as well as provide a
[1:16:20] neighborhood outreach and also
[1:16:22] encouraged to uh provide any sound
[1:16:25] attenuation that may be available for
[1:16:27] the generator.
[1:16:30] Yep.
[1:16:31] Do we have a second? Second here.
[1:16:35] Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Kamran.
[1:16:37] Yes. Member Middleman.
[1:16:40] Yes. Member Sullivan. Yes.
[1:16:42] Great. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:16:51] Where's your wrap-up statement, Sage,
[1:16:53] where you say, "Uh, you'll get a letter
[1:16:54] in the mail and uh
[1:16:58] It's been a long day. Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:17:00] >> Long day, okay.
[1:17:02] So, with that, close of the public
[1:17:03] hearing, and then director's report.
[1:17:06] Um, I don't have anything further to
[1:17:08] report.
[1:17:10] Uh,
[1:17:10] just noting, uh, as I did at the
[1:17:12] beginning of the meeting, that we'll
[1:17:13] bring to, uh, the council just an item
[1:17:16] to look at for this particular round of
[1:17:19] chair and vice chair, uh, nominations
[1:17:22] and votes, um, that if the council would
[1:17:24] like to waive
[1:17:26] the charter requiring no more than two
[1:17:28] years within a four-year period. Yes.
[1:17:31] And assuming that's done at the next
[1:17:32] town council
[1:17:33] >> That's correct. It will It will
[1:17:34] definitely It's going to be on We're
[1:17:35] going to put it on the consent agenda
[1:17:37] for the next town council meeting, and
[1:17:38] should anyone want to pull it, we'll
[1:17:39] discuss Discuss it at that time. So,
[1:17:41] then then, uh, for us, the next ASRB
[1:17:43] >> That's correct. Yeah, we'll have that
[1:17:45] decision by then.
[1:17:46] And And you want to bring up something
[1:17:48] that concerns me. So, when I was looking
[1:17:50] at the projects that were on for today,
[1:17:53] I feel that two of the projects didn't
[1:17:55] need to come here.
[1:17:56] You know,
[1:17:58] I understand that, you know, 115 Romero
[1:18:00] is within
[1:18:02] the scenic corridor, but the
[1:18:04] It's the virtually going to be the same
[1:18:05] house at the end of the day.
[1:18:07] And with 885 Espinosa, from what I
[1:18:09] understand, it's the exact same project
[1:18:11] that was approved a couple years ago,
[1:18:13] and because of a life event,
[1:18:15] they had to spend thousands of dollars
[1:18:17] of put up story poles to come back to
[1:18:19] ASRB.
[1:18:21] So, I I just want to take a moment to
[1:18:23] reflect that maybe our code has some
[1:18:25] deficiencies that we should visit in
[1:18:26] terms of how we
[1:18:30] allow a project that's been delayed to
[1:18:32] move forward without incurring
[1:18:33] additional finances or financial costs,
[1:18:35] as well as
[1:18:37] Yes, it's a scenic corridor, but
[1:18:40] maybe we should have an initial
[1:18:41] threshold before
[1:18:45] All right.
[1:18:45] >> Oh, that's fine. The um
[1:18:48] Yeah, those are comments that town
[1:18:50] council can consider in making any code
[1:18:52] changes.
[1:18:53] Um with regards to expirations
[1:18:55] you know, at the staff level, we just
[1:18:57] have no authority. I'm not going to
[1:18:58] decide whether it's 2 weeks, 2 months,
[1:19:00] or 2 years. Um so, there's just there's
[1:19:03] a timeline and you know,
[1:19:06] starting talking about objective and
[1:19:07] subjective, we want to be very careful
[1:19:09] in making those kinds of decisions. They
[1:19:10] need to file for extension. Yeah, they
[1:19:12] just didn't and we can't keep track of
[1:19:14] everyone's projects for them. Um they um
[1:19:17] they have their own, you know, they're
[1:19:18] provided with that information when they
[1:19:20] get approved. Um and it's their
[1:19:22] responsibility to uh make sure they
[1:19:24] follow up on that stuff.
[1:19:27] Okay. But, I I do agree that if we
[1:19:29] didn't have to, you you know,
[1:19:31] those are they that's
[1:19:33] But, these are these are items
[1:19:35] definitely that, you know, at some point
[1:19:37] can be considered with the town council.
[1:19:38] I mean, there we I know there's been
[1:19:40] different times in the past that, you
[1:19:42] know, when we have the thousands uh
[1:19:44] square foot threshold for scenic
[1:19:46] corridors in Western Hills, whereas the
[1:19:49] rest of the town is a 2,000 square foot
[1:19:50] threshold. And there's been talk
[1:19:52] sometimes about just making them the
[1:19:54] same. Um and so, [clears throat] you
[1:19:56] know, that's definitely a discussion
[1:19:57] worth having.
[1:19:59] >> [snorts]
[1:20:01] >> All right.
[1:20:02] Thank you. That adjourn the meeting at
[1:20:04] 5:50 p.m.