Okay. College of Order. Okay. Lindsay. Vice your camera. President. Member Taft. President. Member Middleton. Member Middleton. Member Taft. Member Middleton. Member Taft. Member Middleton. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. Member Taft. I believe this is the just cause exception and he's able to participate because we have a qu present in the Act, I am alone in my home office. Also, I don't think you're my current song though. Yeah, right on. Is that better? Okay. Are there any changes to the agenda tonight? There are no changes to the agenda and you do not have any discosms. Okay. This is a moment where we call for public requests or anything not currently on the agenda. I see no public in the room other than our applicants online. And Kara Toy, Kara Toy or Steve, if you'd like to speak on something not on the agenda, please raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised online and no one in the room, there's no public comment. Great. And there's nothing on the consent agenda. There is. There's two sets of nothing on the consent agenda. There is there's two sets of minutes on the consent agenda minutes of March 18th and the minutes of April 1st. And we're just we pass a motion whether to approve these minutes correct. That's correct. Do I have that motion? Yes, you have it. Second. Second. Thank you. Right. Chair Lindsey. Yes. That's your comment. Yes. Overtapped. Yes. Over Millman. Yes. Motion moves. Right. Thank you. And then we just have the one agenda item for one application today. So that'll hand it start to your week. Today, I'm going to be presenting the Conceptual Design Review for a project proposed at 130 Lynn Way. The project includes the demolition of an existing single-family residence, wool, shed, and associated site improvements, and construction of a new single-family main, wool, shed, and associated site improvements, and construction of a new single-family main residence within attached garage, detached accessory dwelling unit, wool, and associated site improvements. There are no desk items for this agenda item at this time, and a during review of a future application or formal design review, the town will make a determination if the project is exempt from CEQA. Okay, so our existing project location that we have here is 1.69 acres in size within the suburban residential zoning designation. This property is located within the Woodside Hills Homes Association, meaning that it does have some codified modified setbacks. The subject property is located off of Lin Way and the site is minimally visible from what side drive. The property is currently developed with a single family main residence, full shed, tennis court and other site improvements and the existing main residence is located at the approximate center of property. The existing pool sitting north of the main residence and the existing tennis court sitting east of the main residence. The existing driveway is located alongside Linway. The preliminary title report in Topographic survey provided with the application have identified a five foot public utility easement that runs along the south and east property lines where the five foot public utility easements converge. At the southeast corner of the property, there is a 10-foot public utility easement. The existing tennis court on site does run along the eastern property line and is partially located within the five-foot public utility easement. And prior to submitting for formal design review, we are asking that the applicant and their architect meet with Public Works Department to determine if that existing tennis court is okay to remain in that easement. Site ranges in elevation from approximately 222 feet along the western property line to approximately 182 feet along the property south eastern corner. The provided topographic survey does identify slopes in excess of 35% on the southeast and north portions of the existing main residents. Service identifying slopes in excess of 35%. Do you show that the proposed footprint of the proposed main residents pool and pool deck that have a garage and other site improvements overlap with slopes in excess of 35%. The applicant has submitted a letter and associated exhibit from Romic Engineering, asserting that the proposed development encompasses manmade slopes of 35% on the southeast and north portions of the existing residents and roaming engineering affirms that prior to modification, the average pre-development slopes adjacent to the post-main residents who were in pool deck and attached garage range between 25 and 30%. The proposed main residence is a one-story single-family home that attach garage in a similar location to the existing main residence. The proposed main residence includes multiple covered and uncovered patio strictly adjacent to the structure. The main covered entry porch is proposed on the northwest portion of the residence facing the existing driveway entrance entrance, which will be maintained for site access. Although floor area calculations will be confirmed at the formal design review level, applicant has measured the proposed main residence at approximately 5,498 square feet, accounting for the multiplier reduction and forage exceptions. This project will therefore require a maximum main residence size during design review. The main residence has been measured at approximately 1719.790 in height at its most extreme difference between it existing in, I was creating this structure of the ridge structure, and it is therefore compliant with the 30 foot height maximum and the SR zoning designation. In addition to the main residence, the applicant has proposed a detached accessory julling unit that is approximately 1,360 square feet, located adjacent to the Western property line. The proposed detached ADU currently measures approximately 17 feet and seven inches in height. And it is therefore currently exceeding the 17 foot perm structure height to be combined with that 17 foot maximum. The proposed materials are consistent between the main residents and the detachments. Really dwelling unit, the applicants are proposing integral color cement, plaster, metal roofing, gutters, downspouts and fluid closures, exterior stone siding, painted windows and doors, and wood siding, rafters, tails and eve decking. The proposed digital material board provides a proposed color palette that includes a variety of earthy colors, primarily in shades of gray and brown, as well as cream colors and off whites. While the applicant has not directly indicated on the provided plans that any trees will be removed. The proposed building footprints and site improvements will likely require removal of existing trees. The applicant has indicated that there will be no project impacts or removals of significant trees accompanying this project and its associated proposed improvements. The applicant has indicated that they will be providing an R-bisht report with their FDR submission and then prior to resubmitting for the formal design review, the applicant shall revise all plan sheets to clearly show a tree's marked for removal by marking them with an X. Members of the project team 4-130 Linway are joining us online. We have Ginger joining us. So if you do have any questions for the design team, please feel free to provide them shortly. And if you have any additional questions for staff, do please feel free to inquire right now and we'd be happy to help. Thank you. Is there any questions for staff from any of the members? Just one quick question. I see the materials and I do like color palette. But do we have a materials board? I know it's not required at this time. Does one exist? We do not yet have a physical materials board for this project. Okay. Any other questions? Can you just show where the ADU is? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, place. So the proposed aid use up here, adjacent to the proposed auto court and driveway, and then this is the existing driveway entry that's on site. Question I do. Everything seems to be in full compliance with the existing guidelines for my minor increase in the height of a load height for the AU. It's pretty insignificant. But what is the rationale? Maybe it's a question for the architecture team. What is the rationale that they have to go through all these troubleshoes to speak for like, point six over foot? Yeah, so what next phase is we'll ask that their design just remediates to bring the height down, but largely 80s are ministerial, so we don't have a lot of discretion over their design, so as long as they're compliant, there's not much of an outstanding problem on it being over-tight. So that point six over foot, is it still compliant or it's out of compliance this way? At this time, it's not proposed to be in compliance or maximum height is 17 fever accessory structures. Thank you. Any questions online, Mr. Middleman? No. Thank you for asking. I do have a couple of questions. Parking. This actually this particular rendering is helpful. The total number required spots. So or for main residents one for the accessory balcony. And so we're seeing here three car garage and the main resident single car garage in the ADU. Three additional spots outside. Now that's within the setback. Is that within on code? Yes. I'm going to set back. I'm supposed to have paved area within the setback. All right. It was most helpful today visiting the site and seeing storypools. Storypools are just so much of an asset to get a sense of mass and placement of homes and sightlines and everything. And a couple of observations, one as I noticed in the, at this right, southwest corner, I think it's the primary bed and primary bath. It appeared that a corner of that structure was what a look to be within the 35% grade area. It's illustrated slightly differently here on this rendering. So the topo versus the story pole placement, illustrated slightly different grade. I was just wondering if that was also within code, that corner of the structure being in such a steep area. So in terms of manmade slopes, you are permitted to build on manmade slopes in excess of 35% permitted that we can have the findings from a sinful engineer that prior to modification that slope was under 35% grade. So, yeah, so when we look at this, we're going to look at the findings of RMEG engineering, see where they've identified manmade slopes of 35% or greater, and then look to ensure that those slopes were previously under present. Similar question on the northwest corner of the ADU. It looked like late height was particularly low. I mean it was it was my height, so six feet from the current grade. You didn't know if the grade was going to be lowered substantially in that area. Yeah, so we are still pending final grading plans, but we can look at that in a little bit more detail when final grading plans are available. There's about at least a two to three foot cut in proposing that corner. That would make more sense. All right. Good. Yeah, that was my question. So then moving on to the applicant, invite the applicant to make a presentation. Or the architect, one or the other or both. I'll let Ginger Rick to pass by anyway. I just wanted to say hello. This is Julie, myself and my partner. We've been St. Collins residents for a whole life. And two daughters, one goes to the University of Michigan, the other is Notre Dame High School, and her son Evan is electrician. So anyway, our plan is to make this a single family home. And we've always thought website is an amazing place. We love the space but also the neighborhood-ish field towards Seitel. Anyway, we're looking forward to working with the guys and looking forward to someday be living in Woodside. Thank you. Good, welcome. Thank you. Do we have an architect presentation or a scientific presentation? Yeah. I'm with architecture. Laura, my name is Ginger Faraddo. You guys really, you said it all. We are going to demolish the existing single story house. We are going to move the pool. We are really trying to keep in the area of the existing site development, not go too far out of it. We're using the beautiful views, you know, citing the house to take advantage of those beautiful views, well maintaining privacy. And any, you know, we'll certainly have the landscape. citing the house to take advantage of those beautiful views while maintaining privacy. And any, you know, we'll certainly have the landscape plan at the, you know, formal design review. We'll have that mitigating any other privacy concerns or questions. And we really, we want it to blend in with the beautiful hills over there. It's gonna be a really nice project and it's gonna look really nice in that area in the going along with the rolling hills. And please feel free to ask me any questions. We are currently acquiring an Arborist report. It doesn't look like many trees are going to be affected at all the ones that are olive and fig trees mostly. And we're going to keep the tennis court where it is. We're going to move the pool a bit to more to better interact with the house and the tennis court and create a little lawn area, family lawn area there. And yeah, please feel free to ask me any questions. Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from the board for architect? I have a couple of questions. I mean, to begin with, I think the site is beautiful site. I love the big, nice hill, I mean, sunny, single story family residents. And the color palette is perfect. I'd like to see the samples when you get them. But yeah, that's all good. A couple of things came to mind, particularly because I don't know that we've seen a landscaping plan. I don't think we're required to see one. But when I pulled up today, actually there was a whole herd of deer living on property. So I'm assuming you're going to have some fancy. And I'd like to maybe buy a formal, see what, you know, that fencing's going to be. The town has some nice guidelines to show. But my main concern on the fencing is the fencing and the screening what's it going to look like. And then also if you go down towards your neighbor, I think it's 150, there seems to be it's grassed over, but it seems to be that they've used almost a second driveway. That's, I mean, there is actually a car park there today. So, it's kind of an older car. And, you know, it's a bit of an eye sore, be driving down the street. And there's this grass, a car park from grass, essentially, even though clearly it's been used as a driveway to the tennis court. So I just want to make sure that's going to be totally pissed in. There's not going to be a second driveway. And that's not going to be used for anything down the road. That's not your car. Not sure. It's got maybe it's your neighbor's car. No, no intention of making that a driveway or access to the property. Okay, that's good. And just what the fence looks like in the other concern I had is just really the mass of the driveway. It seems larger than most driveways. I know that's a narrow street for parking. But partly, what are the materials going to be for the driveway? If it's decomposed granite, it looks a little better than if you've got this massive black top. And is it necessary to have because you're I think you're over the allowable paid allowance, not by much, not what it used to be, but what it is now. And I'm not sure how if they calculated the tennis court into that. Calculations, but it did seem to be a little larger drive flight than I think what we're used to see. And so that's just my question. Materials in the size, essentially. Yeah. Can I know the top-of-the-scene space gender? Yeah. You know, a lot of that is also determined with our civil engineer, of course, with drainage requirements, paving requirements, and everything that'll go. We work very closely with the civil engineers to make sure that we're under our paved area requirements. In this case, if you look at their drawings side by side, we're actually getting rid of a lot of asphalt and a lot of paved area. And it will also, I don't know the exact material that it will be yet, but it's certainly something that we're very aware of. We don't wanna create a big heat sink. We don't wanna create, you know, range sheet run off down the hill. So it's something that we're very concerned with and we will work closely with the clients, of course, with the owners and with our civil engineer to make sure that looks good. Jillian, I'm not sure. Am I correct? And it is over the desired pay delivery. Yeah, currently the site exceeds the permissible paved area for the suburban residential zoning district. However, there is a clause in the code that says, if you take the difference between existing and what is allowed. And then you look at a 25% reduction in that value, then that can be the permissible amount for the property. So the allowed is 15,000 for a fleet. Existing is 20 and a half. Correct. So we subtract the existing from that 15. Wait, wait on the equation you just mentioned. And this new engineering is super precision engineering. So they are very precise. It's a given. Not only by name, but we're good here, right? And I'll just add that everything discusses correct, they're they're complying with what's the allowable based on the existing nonconforming situation. And in terms of drive wind materials, yes, we'll get more details there. There's certain cove requirements in terms of materials you can use based on the slopes the driveway. So anything that's over a 5% slope, which is perfect flat, needs to be some type of, they call plant mixed material, like something that's mixed into plants. So like an asphalt or concrete or pavers, something that has the correct friction required. And then anything that goes over 15 between 15 and 20%, which I don't think will occur here, has to be what's called brush concrete or something equivalent, and that's for fire truck friction. So we can get those details at the formal design review stage,ac, but not on the property. But the text implies that it's somewhere on the property. What is... I'm not seeing that we have a truck turn around. So no. I think so, I still let me make sure. I shall exclude the order, just a guide one. Shall exclude the existing truck turn around and existing equipment pads up to, I seem to be just a quote from the golden. This is, yeah, so what that is in the report is just identifying that if the, this gets reviewed by the fire district, the formal design of youth stage. So if there's any existing and proposed fire truck turnarounds, they would take those exclusions and therefore could reduce their overall existing square footage. But it's likely that a fire truck turnaround may not be required given its proximity to the roadway. And there is a turnabout on the road, yes itself. Just one more question. Can we get back to the drawings of the, because it's a parking area that I'm having a little concern with because it does seemed large. Particularly the ADU, which is right up against the neighbors, fats. There's, you've got the parking inside the garage, but then you have three car parking next to it. Could that be two car parking? So because that's when those people, when you drive into those three cars, your headlights are shining into your neighbor's property. But was I correct that there's three for the ADU plus the inside garage? There's there what they're showing is just parking spaces being proposed or whether it's for the ADU or for guest parking or for whatever use it's proposed they're just showing that number of spaces. They do comply with with the minimum required. With the minimum, but yeah, anyway, the maximum may be a good thing because if someone is playing tennis doubles, so then you don't want to kill those cars in the street. So it's a nobo intention there. Yeah, okay. For the point that it is those, I guess, are drawing for this. Sorry, sorry to interrupt. If we're going to speak and do these, just speak to the microphone. Just cut, just be in recorded. Sorry. Just those obviously are drawings, but those cars are pointed to, side of the hill, the neighbors are actually to the left. So that just points into a, like a dead zone dead area. Not that potentially we even have those three park there. Okay. And then my last question to you is just the neighborhood response. Have you met all your neighbors? Have because we haven't heard we didn't get comments positive or negative. Which good when you don't but what was sort of the neighborhood reach on building this house? So once it's said so we sent out emails to everybody and they was very positive. Welcome into the neighborhood. And so it was very nice of them all to say good luck and looking forward to having you. Okay. But nothing specific about the building. Thank you. Yep. We were approved by the Woodside Hills HOA. We've already received that approval. And we've done their required neighborhood outreach and all the comments have been very positive. Okay, thank you. I had one. You good, go ahead. I had one question around the movie of the pool and the new proposed law. In, you know, when I visited, excuse me. When I visited the site and walked around the pool area, there was a lot of screening towards the road, with of course the small bushes and some large trees. I just don't see that on this plan and I know a vegetation management plan is coming. I was just curious if those are staying and what the plan was as you'd be developed that site for a while. Our plan isn't there, there doesn't seem to be any removal needed of any of the vegetation over there. The main portion of the couple of trees that are going to be removed are more in the area of the bedroom way. You can see on the survey, there are a couple of specific box hedge gardens and olives. Yeah. Allives and those are up the northwest corner, more up there. So we're not planning on removing the stuff down where the existing pool is. Perfect. Yeah, and I observed that when I looked at the storyfalls in the existing site, yeah, I was just unsure when I looked to the fans again. And my my colleagues manage and gets all my other questions. Sorry, I appreciate that. Okay, I have a potentially a couple of questions. So on the West side, so the primary bed and primary bath. One of the things we look at when we visit the site is try and engage privacy issues for surrounding neighbors and also light emission, potential issues around light emission. And I notice that that's the one area that corner there in the western side, which sort of directly faces the neighboring house. And I see on this current sheet that's being projected. I think that's a three. But there is some planned landscape screening. Is that you think that will be the extent of screening required because it looks to be quite a height like that screening would probably have to be close to 20 feet in order to do the job. design review, we will show more actual plantings and areas designated for the plantings and the change from, you know, screening, quote unquote, screening trees versus shrubs, you know, melding into grasses, melding into natural habitat. We have recognized that that particular corner is going to need some screening, yes. It is certainly the greatest exposure, I think, to the neighboring property. Okay. Good. Yeah, I have no other questions. So we can open it to the public. Anyone in the public, either in the room or online, or would like to make a comment on this application. Welcome to do so. So we have two members of the public online, Kara Toy or Steve. If either one of you would like to speak, please raise your hand virtually. We'll allow you to speak. Seeing no hands raised in the Zoom room or, and no one in the public physically, it appears to be no public comment. All right, thank you. So that closes the public hearing so we switched out to board discussion. So who would like to kick us off? Oh, are there any concerns? Is that a question to me? There's a given answer. I can only one question to the junior. And Ginger, just for my education, if you would, again, that minor difference in the height. Is it because what's the reason for that? Is it because you have to lower the plate and make sure that ADU does not stick out. They are a desire and rationale for the design right now. Right now is working with our civil engineer. We set it at a certain height and we went back and forth with the civil engineer and we know that we're gonna have to lower it. But we wanna do it to make sure, if flooding or a big rain event like we had, where we saw a lot of flooding. It's engineered so you know that the water won't flow into the house. So yes, that will comply. That at formal design review that will comply. That's what the drain from the drainage perspective. And I understand that, but from the overall height perspective, the maximum length of the height, excuse me, is 17 feet, and you're going like, 0.6 of a foot above that. What is the rationale for that? Why was it necessary? It's not necessary. We set it at the same height, the same floor level as the house, and it just so happened that once we did the measurements, it was over height. So there wasn't a design decision, we will fix that. That's not, we're not asking for that to be approved. We're just, you know, the design of the ADU is to go with the main house and that's what I did into that that. It would be essentially visually it would be the same level. It just depends on where you measure it if you measure it like six inches one way and you're measuring from either existing or, you know, which you measure from whichever's lower. Then, you know, we'll make sure that it's under the height requirement, but we will also make sure that it drains and it works with the site. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any comments? Well, I think the design is in good, my humble opinion is in a good taste. It's really kind of modern, what are you like? All the colors are fine. And so they're kind of traditional, in the 21st century combination, but still has the flavor of what we can't decide, the real needs to have. All they have been looked more carefully on the design documentation, it's all at the high professional level, so there will be very unlikely there will be any mistakes and problems. Extra parking I think it's good because again no one would park in the street when someone plays tennis. So I think it's a good project. Okay, any additional comments from the rest of the board? No, I agree. It's a beautiful design. I like the design. My house is somewhat similar. I just have a little problem with the mass with the driveway that I know it's great. Okay. You're parking could be there, but it's nice to have a green space and then all this, you know, together, that's nice, dry body. But I mean, that's not that big of a deal, particularly depending on what sorts of materials are used. That can be minimized, but that's the only design issue that I have a little bit. And as long as, you know, at formal landscape plan is submitted with the proper fencing and screening, particularly, you know, all the way around the property, then I think it's fine. I think it's beautiful for us. No, I really, I think it was basically done. I was happy to see a little new site overlaid the old footprint, and what was being removed to minimize the serving of the site, and that you manage it appears to reclaim some open space. I do echo those concerns around the driveway, and while we don't have a maximum parking restriction in the code. I just question if nine places are really necessary with only one AVU. But overall, looks like a great project. Thank you. From my perspective, I think it's, it all fits clearly within the guidelines, the residential design guidelines of the town. I think we've identified a handful of concerns from parking. For me, it's primarily the exposure to the neighboring property on the west. But I'm confident that would be addressed. Site polls are certainly tremendous asset at this early stage, and exceptionally helpful. Yeah, I would be comfortable this moving directly to staff, as we make a motion. Yeah. Cap, as it goes to the parking, the suggestion you mentioned is how to screen the parking more from the seat, if possible, maybe that can be added to the notes. Is there a recommendation? Okay. It's probably what's going to happen anyway, but just not to forget. Did you capture that, Suhich? Okay. So to recap, the board commented the applicant going to cap in any way, but just not to forget. Did you capture that, Sue? OK. So to recap, the board commented the applicant for providing a design that is consistent with the residential design guidelines using colors and materials that work well with a site. There, and then another also commented the applicant for placing the new residents in approximately the same location, the existing residents, which minimizes the site disturbance. And some recommendations from the ASRB are for the applicant to try to reduce the size of the driveway and or the look of the driveway, such as using different materials that could soften the impact, as well as providing any screening that may be helpful for the proposed parking spaces to as well soften the impact from off-site views. And then also for the landscape plan to specifically address, some screening that might be necessary between the neighboring property to the west. With that, is there anything else who would like me to add? Okay, I'll just add to that because Vice Chair always likes to see landscape plans. But we don't have a formal landscape plan at this stage. So I'm before we make any motion to move directly to formal design with staff, are you comfortable with it? I'm comfortable to move with staff knowing that they know of our concerns and that they're going to be looking to make sure there is proper screening, tall screening at the bedroom windows, the fence line, maybe shading. And I think the idea, say, you brought it up more of, can you soften the driveway? I mean, can a tree be in the middle of it? Something to just soften that impact would be nice. But I'm fine with moving to far more of you. Yeah. Yeah. What that is their motion? We have a motion. I have a motion to move to formal review with just our concerns in mind that you progress along. Do we have a second? Yes. Right. a second? Yes. Great. Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Conrad? Yes. The Remitteline? Yes. The Ratafd? Yes. The motion moves. Great. So just for the benefit of the applicant, the board recommended that you move forward to formal design review with the recommendations that were provided this evening. So we will send out a letter within the next day or two outlining this action. And then you may proceed with your application to the next step. Thank you. Good. Good luck. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, John. All right. That includes that section of the agenda. Do we have any directors reports this month? No, the only thing I just want to report, I believe you all received an email that the Planning Commission will be reviewing ADU standards. It's just a study session this Wednesday, June 12th. So you invite to participate, listen by Zoom. If you do choose to participate in the meeting, you're more than welcome to. It's just always a good idea to state that you are an ASRB member, but you're speaking as an individual. But we'd love to have you guys participate if you choose to and staff reports online if you want to take a look at that. It's just a study session. So no hard actions are going to be taken. The report outlines a number of different ideas in which the town could make things more flexible and easier for ADUs to be constructed on properties as well as possibly increase the number of ADUs to be allowed on some properties. That's part of kind of, it's a big push for, it's one of our last comments we're dealing with the state on is looking for kind of this medium density and allowing more ADUs on certain properties maybe a way to accomplish that. That's Wednesday evening. That's correct. It's be at 6 p.m. and it is the only item on the agenda. All right. Just the last comment I'd like to make is we do have a town volunteer event on the 20th. I plan to attend. I don't know if any of my fellow members planning to attend. I don't know if any of my fellow members planning to attend. You're out of town. Okay. Mr. Middlement. I all depends on if they show their no better. Okay. Sorry to hear. I'm going to try. I'm not sure. Okay. Let me think in my life, maybe. All right, thank you. All right, that concludes tonight's meeting. So we will wrap at 513.