I'm going to go ahead and see if I can get a little bit of a All good. All right. Call the speeding to order at 430 on Monday, July 22nd. Roll call please. Chair Lindsey. Yes. Mr. Comra. Yes. Member Delgavio. Member Milliman. Member Taft. Great. Thank you. Do we have any changes, the agenda for today? Yes. You have a minor change in that. The minutes have not been finalized yet. So Sarah completed draft. I haven't reviewed them yet. So we'll have a package of minutes for you here next meeting. So the consent agenda we will just take that off today and we will bring it to the next day. So our B meeting and then you do to have some desk items for two projects one at 385 more road and one at 219 Lyndon Brook or 2 at 219 Lyndon Brook and the planners will address those with their presentations. Okay and just so we're clear next meeting will be that's correct. Nobody's in August. Yes. It is I believe so. It can't be the first Monday because it was a Labor Day. So it is the ninth I believe. Yes. Yes, September 9th. Okay, so minutes are removed from the agenda. Does anyone in the public either in the room or online want to make a statement or add an item to the agenda that agenda. No one online? No. There are no raised hands. No. Hey, you consent agenda, anything that lies today? We don't have. No. That's the primary speech I can start moving on. Okay. All right. Let's begin with the public hearing. First item on the agenda tonight is, is it, I got multiple copies of things. Is it 219 Linda Brooks? That's correct. That's correct. Thank you. My name is Melanie Olson, Associate Planner, and I'll be introducing the project at 219 Lindenbrook Road for formal design review with the ASRB. The project includes primarily a revision to the previously approved main residence roof design from a gable-rich roof to a flat roof design. The overall project would demolish an existing guest house to construct a new multi-level single-family main residence with a partial basement, partially demolish and existing one-story single-family residence to convert to an ADU and construct a second ADU with other site improvements. You received two desk items today from the applicant that include an image of the previously approved materials submitted for formal designer view at staff and an image of the previously installed story polls for ASRB conceptual design review from the January 9th, 2023 meeting. The property is approximately three and a half acres in the SCP-5 zoning district. There are many areas that slope down into slopes greater than 35%, which are primarily shown in the gray areas, aside from most areas that are already developed. The property has three existing buildings, including a single-story main residence and a guest house and a shed. As previously stated, the major changes that come to the ASRB include the design of the roofs from the Gable Ridge roof to a flat more modern roof that are proposed only for the main residents. The overall height decreases slightly from 29.9 feet to 28.9 feet. However, the overall floor area of the main residents increases slightly from 6,525 square feet to 6,617 square feet, which does not include the partial basement that has been added. So if we're looking at the elevations, this is currently the one on the left is the previously approved main residence with the Ridge roof design and then on the right is the previously approved main residence with the Ridge roof design. And then on the right is what the applicant is proposing at this time. So this is the front elevation. This is the side. The rear elevation. And then the north side, which is the right if you're looking at it from the front of the property. Other than the main residence, the applicant has removed the previously approved cabana wool and they have increased the proposed pave area and surface coverage from 6460 square feet to 7,000 and 55 square feet. No changes have been made to the setbacks or the proposed additional 280 use. Also the applicant is not proposing any changes to the previously approved materials. And then these are the physical materials that they submitted with formal designer of you with staff. The applicant is here in person and is available for questions. That concludes my presentation. Staff is happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. So, I have a brief process question. I think we have a number of members of this board who have not participated in a formal review previously. Could you just provide us with a high level overview of what a scope of our commentary and feedback is in a formal review? It's very similar to conceptual reviews. So you have more information and it's a recommendation for approval or denial or additional conditions of the project. Whereas the conceptual, you're giving recommendations to address the next stage. So here, whereas the ASRB is a recommending body, this is the formal designer of yours where action is taken on a project. So the ASRB would be recommended for a specific action to myself, the planning director. And so the minor difference is that you are looking to take action on a project versus recommendations to be addressed at another stage. Thanks. Does anyone on the board have questions? Yes, yes, no, and and every stage neighbors have input. So where is a lot of the formal design review items get brought to staff or ask for staff review, we complete that process. And neighbors are still allowed to provide input at that stage, even though there's no public hearing. We don't do notifications without public hearings, but we keep track of everyone who's participated in the conceptual process and they are notified of any action take of the formal process. So yes, there we want to make sure there's full neighbor participation. Any questions for staff? Really quickly touch up on the numbers of the actual area. Should they defend it? Sorry, but let's figure the mic up. Sorry, I was a little bit interested. Maybe we can, me only can I will briefly touch upon the numbers. Page two of the summary. You can touch upon 8800 square feet. Sorry, can you speak a little louder? Surely. I've looked at the second page two of the summary. There's a formula? Oh yes. The maximum size except where footage? Yes. 8800 square feet. And in the next paragraph, the proposed total for area is 9445. So in what side we look at two different buckets of floor area, one is the main residence size and then the other one is the total floor area. So that formula is only for the main residence size and then the total floor area is a separate number. Yeah, no problem. Any other questions? That's the one. Did they have neighbor review? Have they? Have they had neighbor review? We noticed the project, no comments. Yeah, we didn't receive anything from any neighbors. Just a question back on square footage. Is this the increase of result of a taller late height? Is it the multiple that's coming into bacteria? Is the footprint of the structure doesn't look like it's changed significant? It's potentially so, especially with flat roofs. We tend to see taller plate heights versus the ridge roof. So that is probably what is causing because I also didn't notice a major change in the footprint, but the applicant can also speak to that as well. Great. Thanks. Well, let's move on to the applicant. All right. My name is Adam Biddle. I'm the architect for the project. Good to be back in front of you. This one is a little bit of a unique one. Beans how we, I think, what year or two ago went all the way through formal. We actually had the project ready to submit for permit. And then, you know, some people just change their mind on a few things, rezultine of budget and then also just design taste. So we took another look at this. The roof design is really just personal preference of the client and I don't know. Do you have the image of the story poles that I sent over? Yeah, all the board members have it at their desk. Okay, and if you made a visit to the site, you'll see that where the house is sits really secondary to the hillside behind it and the trees. And the approach you're actually approaching a little lower in elevation working your way up. So in that story, Paul photo from the last one, you can kind of see that the difference from a gable roof to a flat roof is kind of negligible in terms of height. We did lower the finished floor of the entire main floor to limit the amount of steps and changes in combination with how you compute as Melanie said flat roofs compared to pitched roofs. There is generally a little more penalty when you're working with a flat roof, just the way the plate heights work out. But by lowering the finished floor, that's how we were kind of get, go to almost a net zero a little bit. The bigger change in the site, removing the cabana and the pool that were in the back, there was this little squishy trying to fit all that back there and the kind just decided, we have, as you can see, and also in the side elevation, a pretty good daylighted side of the house, just naturally with the slope, budget wise and scope wise it made sense. Well we can allocate that cabana square footage down to that side where we have a pretty decent size crawl space and then removal of the pool. So that's where the total floor area calc actually reduces. So main house slightly increased more because of the roof design, total floria reduced overall. There's no change to the majority, the approach of the project, the driveway, driveway is since refined going through formal, getting reviewed by engineering fire and planning. Of course, so now it's pretty dialed in. Since our last year in the project is all set for sewer that's been coordinated in the right away I believe a separate permit coordinated with the neighbor who you we share the easement with I believe the hydrant has already been upgraded. So the house is ready to go or the site is ready to go. This is just purely kind of a proactive proposed change and because of the design style change, it's back in front of you. And I'm happy to answer any any questions you may have on this. Any other board have questions for the applicant. It's a pretty private site, so it is hard to get back to it. It looks like you minimize the outermover removal. You minimize the amount of folks that would be very good. There's no change from the previous project. Most of them, I believe, will remove due to health. Doing the Arbor's report, there is a substantial amount of trees as you as you saw on site. But no change from the last reviewed project. As the page one of the summaries, the Sinclair says, are agonizing the site provides notice to neighbors and other members of the public interest in the project. So there are no comments from the neighbors. More questions? No. So material palette remains the same largely? Correct. Yeah. The surface of the flat roof will be... It'll be probably a built up roof. We are not going to go with obviously a bright color. We'd go with something with a lower LRV, light reflectance value. Potentially a gravel could cover whatever the roof membrane or built up is, but it shouldn't really be visible. It's not visible on the approach. I'd say if you're in the property sitting above the hillside, you'd have to try really hard to see down below through it, but it definitely would be a darker tone. Do you point to cover a roof overhang or the flat roof? I'm sorry, was a practical question. But the flat roof, I would hope again, it's not part of this committee, but just based on the personal experience, it's important to have an overhang because flat roofs, especially gravel, are problematic and drainage, is problematic, you you have a challenge. I mean, you know, you're the experts too. I, yeah, they don't, there are overhangs to protect the walls and what's below, is that what you're referring to? It's not just a, you know, you can see it on there. There are at least a couple feet of eaves on a flat roof. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Any more questions? No. No. Wow. OK. Quite agree. With that, we move on to the, uh, one more more things. Okay. So you might have noticed that and sage can answer this. I'm hoping there is an out, but I know there probably isn't with story polls. Um, we are required. I believe to install story polls, even though we're going back to formal. We did not install them. Due to time constraints and the cost. I wish there was a work around because there's not much difference. But the idea if not is we'll have to be put back on the September hearing continued until they're installed. Again, I will note story polls of something like this is about 10K plus. And it's a I'd say it's excessive in this circumstance, but I don't believe the town has a method to get around it So I'll leave that to you guys to debate The story polls were installed previously If there's no members of the public that have comments on this project and the AS or B Themselves don't need to see the story polls. We can work with the applicant and depending what decision is made here, that could be the final decision on the project. I think I was the only member at the time the story polls were installed. A few years ago. So actually, I'd like to pull the board members on this specific topic. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. and we will see sort of both of the side of it. There. I agree. Thank you. I agree. As always, I would comment on quantifying this, right? New story post, which could have been constructed. How different it would be from the previous ones two years ago, the difference in the height seems to be very minimal, but it would be good to quantify it for the record. And the overhangs of the wet roof, they're a little bit wider than the original design, but it's so minimal that probably no one would even see the difference. Just to reconfirm what you're saying. Yeah, in terms of story polls, that overhang is not even accounted for. We're just talking the wall massing. So that's one of the reasons I've provided that picture of the previous story poll install. You can imagine pretty much at the plate height drawing a square across that, removing the gable form. That's pretty much the height we're talking about. Thank you. No problem. I'm not hearing any strong objection. We just want to make sure that if there's any members of the public that want to speak online. We have two people who I believe are owners for the other project and there's someone online notice guest guest if they'd like to speak they can raise their hand. So you know hands raised and if any members of the public like to speak on this they're here for other projects so I just want to make sure so there are no comments. And you've noted our consensus. Yes. So if that's the end of the discussion, it sounds like the ASRVS support of the project and you could recommend approval of the project, subject to the same conditions of approval that were applied to the previous formal design of you and just in reference, those conditions of approval are outlined in the its attachment to, and it's the December 5th, 2023 action letter from the planning director, and all of those conditions would be applicable to this project. So if that's it, you can make a motion to that effect. I will make a motion that. Okay. I appreciate that. Actually, that's a good point. And so based on what I've heard today is that. Actually, that's a good point. And so based on what I've heard today is that that story pulls would unlikely change the opinion of ASRB members as well as the changes are minimal enough as shown in the original storypool pictures that were provided that it's not necessary as well as the town not receiving any comments from members of the public and for those reasons we would not require store pulls. Right. Do we have a motion? Make a motion. Okay. Second. Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice-Trade Comra. Member Lugavio. Yes. The Remillment. Member Taft. Yes. Remillment? Yes. Member Taft? Yes. The motion moves. Hey, thanks. Thank you. Moving on to the next project. We have 3985 Woodside Road. Yes, thank you. Before I begin, I'm going to bring over some material samples for you to look at. Show and tell. I'm going to bring over some material samples for you to look at. Show until. Okay. For those of you I haven't met yet. My name is Sarah Phileep, associate planner with the town. So I'd like to introduce the project at 3985 Woodside Road. The project includes the removal of an existing barn and the construction of a new livestock barn in the same general location. So the property is currently developed with a main residence as well as 280 use a swimming pool and some sheds. The property is three acres it's in the SCP-5 zoning district and is located on Woodside Road kind of near across from Wonderlick Park. So the applicant is proposing to construct a new livestock barn right here in the like southeastern portion of the property. So that's this area here. There is an existing barn already located in that location that will be removed and recycled or donated to another property. The new barn will be placed in the same general location. It will have a larger footprint though than the existing barn. The barn will not be used for horses. It will be used for small livestock like sheep or goats. six pens in the center of the barn intended for four to six goats and as well as some general areas for feed storage, wash and grooming, milking and a full bathroom and changing area for beekeeping. The barn will also have an upstairs loft area used for storage. There will be a paddock adjacent to the barn on the east side of the barn. The barn uses forms and materials that are typical for barn structures such as vertical wood board sighting, metal framed windows and doors and standing seam metal roof. I just want to pull up the rendering. Give it just a second to load. Here we go. So the ASRB as well as the livestock and equine heritage committee reviewed the conceptual design review earlier this year. The ASRB made recommendations for the applicant to work with the committee on the formal design review. So, during the formal design review, the applicant met with the committee on two separate occasions to discuss the project. So, at the first meeting on June 26, the committee reviewed the project and had a number of questions for the applicant, which are outlined in the staff report as well as attachment D. The committee met again on the light 10th to discuss the project in further detail. After a lengthy conversation, the committee still had a number of questions and concerns that they felt needed further clarification. The committee actually also discussed formulating a checklist for applicants to use when proposing barns for animals other than other than horses. Similar to the checklist that's in the stable ordinance, which is specifically for horses. So the committee recommended that the project proceed to the ASRB for review that the committee formulated a checklist for the applicant to address prior to any building permit issuance and that the applicant used the committee during the building permit stage if necessary. The architect is present in person and I believe the property on our zone zoom and available for any additional clarifications and I'm happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you. Thanks. Does anyone on the board have questions? I'm going to mind that this is a formal review. This conceptual review is January I think. February. formal review. This conceptual review is anywhere I think. Everywhere. The light committee has several suggestions or opinion and the four-footed instance to go ahead. Is that something you should just put aside at the point of view? Does the delay follow staff? They go on the reverse. Yes and no. So certain things like that and some technical items staff will be looking at closer. With regard to the building permit application, such as locations of floor drains, on things like that, they would be on more technical drawings. You know, the type of flooring we want to look at that, make sure it's not marble flooring or something like that. Just as an extreme example. And so, and also we've been in coordination with the livestock committee and they have a health and safety subcommittee and it's likely that staff would utilize them during the building permit process to deal with some of these technical things. So that's the no part of it. The yes part for the ASRB is if there are things design-wise, that could be affected with any of these items. It's yes, the ASRB could opine on and make recommendations on those items related to design. Just like the Canada, it's not something the kind of use made to do it. Again, we're proposing to get a problem of bars and then you expect. Well, a little bit different in that, you know, billions for human habitation are what they are, whether it's a home office, a bed, a bathroom, whereas barns are allowed to be larger than other accessory structures. And they're specifically allowed to be larger in taller because they are required to be used for livestock. So someone to use it for a private car collection or something like that. I first started working here. A barn was converted into a full-court basketball court. Hardwood floors and all, scoreboard and everything. And so the idea is to ensure that barns are for their intended use. So form and function is a little bit interrelated with this. Sure. Go there, it's a new spread. That's correct. They would call, definitely the, the cheap, any livestock, the definition of livestock in our code is any mammal customarily raised on a ranch, except for hogs or bulls. Those are what's livestock. And so therefore, these types of smaller animals would qualify as livestock and could, and could be used, the barn could be used for those types of animals. That's correct. That is correct. Yes. If they could be converted down the road, that's great, but it's not a requirement. Some designs are designed differently for different types of animals. Maybe just a comment. Yekisugi is kind of in thing for the siding. There are different variations of it. What we see here is just one of the collection of samples, probably would be the one, but in terms of fire, I believe they're fire returns so the building department will confirm that's correct. That's correct and yes with this type of siding it's unique but we have seen it applied in woodside and the architect probably would know better than I but my understanding is the siding is one component of it but it's how it's constructed underneath the siding. There's certain fireproofing requirements. So that will always have to be met. And then yes, all of the materials have to. I'm probably missing the right terminology, but they have to be certified by the state for the right types of materials. And yes, they all would be reviewed and checked by the building department. We can fire district in but stick question. And it's a beautiful material. Any other questions first? All right, I invite the applicant. I said, to ask you one why you're sticking. I like it here. Adam Bittel of architectural lore again and I think I'm joined by the homeowners. They're online on zoom if needed. But good to be back here. I can't remember how many of you were here for the first time we were through on two. Okay. So three of you. Perfect. So yes, since the time that's passed, we met a couple times exchanged response letters with the LEHD and as Sage said in the last one, I think it was highly productive because we kind of realized we're talking, I'm talking more design at this front end ASRB public realm visibility and you know their focus is obviously a little more health safety technical and there doesn't exist a guideline specific or checklist for smaller livestock compared to you know the the whole raising horses and woodside documents. So I think hopefully this might bridge that we're glad that there'll be a resource hopefully during the building permit review process. From the last hearing what was requested from ASRB was a rendering and then some material samples. As you noted, the charred wood that is the newer element here, the idea and I obviously took a little artistic license to lighten it a bit on the rendering just so you could see it. But it's meant to sit secondary and kind of below those redwoods. It's about 250 plus feet from Woodside Road where the barn sits. Talked within the trees, the elevation of Woodside Road is almost 30 feet above the finished floor of the barn. And so you're really looking down on this. We thought, you know, the owners wanted a just a beautiful traditional barn. And so as Sage alluded to, we did design it. The smaller wings on the side can be converted to horse stalls later on. That's not their intention, but in doing this new structure, it does meet the size requirements, ceiling height stalls. The depth is designed around that. Their intention is goats here, and obviously the secondary ancillary uses of farm equipment. I don't know if you read the narrative, the whole idea of permaculture, which they're heavily invested on on this property, extensive gardens, and then ultimately to orchards. And so that's the concept of it. I'm pretty confident that the technical pieces that, you know, the LHC is going to be a resource for us. We can bridge those, no different than we would. Fire sprinklers, septic design, all the engineering elements. But the idea with this, the new element is the darker, charred, siding. The other elements you see are in the current main house in ADU. The little bit lighter stain siding, that's the main house. The roof will match the main house same finish. The windows and doors will be the darker metal. So it's idea to bridge this and I'm happy to answer any questions on this. I know this is another unique one just like the last one, but I'll do my best to answer as I can. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board to the app? You know, I do have one question that I have had in my own books. I have said I love the book. I think it's doable that we have people read stuff as far as. So I kind of look at that. I want it's too old that we have people used to have these parts. And so I want to concern the last time. I know this is a long way. You don't have to say that I'm asking. Well, this would be the stage to submit one that it's not proposing landscaping. Well, why should I be concerned? My last time was deep in the war on the side of the city. The rules said that one is that feels like the end of the So it's already fenced in around there. So what are your intentions? Is it all of them? Which I know? Or maybe looking? So it's already fenced in around there. I believe there's plans, hopefully to submit in the future. New gate fencing along the front. I don't believe that has been produced or submitted. I honestly know it hasn't. This we've been working on this phase for probably eight years, you know, working from the back of the property forwards, but fences and gates tend to be more a staff level item these days, but there will be some kind of fence. Yes, yes. And I correct. Yeah. Any other questions? Should do more formal reviews. And so I know a number of the livestock committees here. Yep, I'm sure. I don't know. I do recall that in the letter from the concept review, most of the feedback was from the livestock committee. Good afternoon. I apologize, Lexi. We have the owner and just. They have the opportunity to finish the presentation and they will have you come up and speak. The owner is online and they raise their hand or just going to have them. You want me to speak or not. Go ahead. I don't. It's. It's okay. Yeah. Thank you. I'm Lexi Bartlow, Vice Chair of the Lives.com. I'm just here to answer any questions you have. Our charge is to ensure the barn structures are actually being designed for the health and safety of animals. And our second charge, which came from previous staff, because there has been an increasing use of the expanded barn building properties to be a lot more generous than any other structure because it's for animals and usually horses, but we are in the process of creating new checklists for pigs, sheep, and goats and structures, building structures for them requirements. So that's a work in progress, but our second charge is because of the barn abuse that has been occurring in greater numbers over the past 10, 12 years. We look at it with an eye towards is this really for animals or is this going to be easily converted into, you know, a a party house which has happened. So I can answer any questions that came up. We've done quite a bit of research on the goat so far. So does anybody have any questions? Are you satisfied with the changes that have occurred? You know, there was so much glass before we were happy to see the glass doors being switched. Are you satisfied at this point? We're not convinced. That's true. That's kind of why I'm here. What do we do about that, sage? It needs to be used for animals. It's just its bottom line. It will be a code enforcement action should the owner not use it for animals. And that's where we get, I think, say into some of the more technical things, which staff does need to review closely. Like I said, flooring is a real issue. You know, is the type of flooring that's appropriate for animals. These are interior details that we definitely will be looking at closely and we'll use the resource of the subcommittee, the health and safety subcommittee to ensure that whatever is installed in those details are going to be safe for animals to occur that far. Is there any specialised drainage, which barn or that type requires? I wouldn't suggest that there's maybe some, well, all to front of the building department if there's anything specific in that regard. But there are just certain general things such as floor drains. If you're, you know, if you have a washing station, right? That water needs to go somewhere. So those are things that will ensure that if you have a washing station. Right. That water needs to go somewhere. So those are things that we'll ensure that if someone says a washing station, there's no floor drain, that would raise some questions. And so we'll be looking at that closely. I know ventilation is a key component. Some, a lot of barns use passive ventilation, but we have seen some barns use mechanical ventilation such as HV seen some bar and juice mechanical ventilation such as HVAC units to heat and cool barns unnecessary. Just following up on this process question. So in conceptual review, the issue of glass was brought up as a safety issue. We're hearing again in formal review, it's being brought up again. It's either the amount or the proximity to the animals. Who owns that decision at the end of with, how much glass or placement of glass, not satisfactory? There's not a code requirement. And so it goes down to, you know, again, line on the livestock committee. If the glass needs to be raised higher, and there's reasons for that, that's something that we can work with the health and safety committee to do. So, got it. I don't know. I mean, if anything, if there's, I don't know if there's county animal control requirements, but my guess is probably not, but we can look into that further. So as it relates to the charter of this board, I mean, kind of beyond our purview to make a safety. I think in absence of significant issues such as, you know, Florida ceiling, last windows, you know, things that are just very apparent that could not work or even be adjusted in a way that would be a minimal design change. Those are things that should be focused upon. In this case, if there are items, it could, if they have any significant design changes, we'd have to bring it back to the ASRB. But if there are minimal changes in working with the Health and Safety Subcommittee, those are things that we could deal with at the staff level. Okay. Any additional questions? No? Nope. Okay. So yes, so I the owner is on zoom, they have their hand down now, but if you'd like to, there you go, hands up. So you're welcome to speak. Hi, this, hello, this is Patricia. I just, I had heard earlier someone was concerned about fencing and I can assure you that our entire property is enclosed with a six foot deer fence. So no animals could escape and get you know to woodside road. So that's just one concern I can say for you. And we, as Adam told you where our mission is permaculture and with the barn, we want to start with goats and having them in the inside of the barn. We thought with the glass we could bring in natural light and without having to have the doors completely wide open. So we just, that's the whole point there. And then we also would have doors on the outside that would close so, you know, to protect, that were solid that would close at night and so nothing could get through. So yeah, further down the road, we want to do beekeeping, and we just, we thought, you know, since we're building a structure, having that height for horses later on, if for some reason someone wanted to have horses. I mean, the older I get, I don't think I'm going to start riding horses and I think that you know the amount of work we're going to have with the goats is going to keep us plenty busy me and my husband but that's all I just wanted to maybe assure that may be assure your concerns that this bond is for livestock. Thank you. And just that I'd like to add just a few points and I don't remember her name, but just because that ended on a little bit of a negative front, I will say that the hearings have been productive with LHAC, their committee meetings, not everyone expressed the same sentiment. I absolutely know that goats can be raised in here in a centralized condition in a barn. I raised goats and sheep as a kid if you can all laugh and believe did 4-H the whole thing. We have a difference of opinion. I'm not going to put goats on a perimeter of a new structure. Absolutely not. They will deteriorate it. It is not safe. Centralizes what you see in a fair and a 4-H environment. It's what you see San Francisco Zoo. You can go on and on. So we're happy to have their help. They are a resource to us. They're a resource to us, they're a resource to planning, they're a resource to building. And that's what there you should be for the health safety. And we're hoping they can provide that assistance on, I mean, even hose bit, there's little things that were brought up. But every other question has been answered. I'd think multiple times in the narratives and response letters. We agree to disagree on something, but I think we can all agree we can raise goats healthy and safely in this structure. So I think with your purview, it's more the public realm and then what we've come to is those details no different than any other system structural civil county health septic all those those get ironed out in the technical drawings. So that is that's why they're not in the set right now. No, no, it was more the centralized and I think there's a difference of opinion in the this goes back to something about when the the the ordinance was written, 15 sage might know 15 years ago, 20 years ago. The idea is the exception for size, according to some, is it's meant only for horses. I think the town, municipal code definition is clear, it's not only for horses, it's for all those ancillary uses, it's written in there. We specifically in the narrative identified on this property with woodside road being elevated multiple structures, it's going to look too busy in combination, which is already developed there. So an isolated barn, it does not feel large on this property. I think where, so I take it from more of the design standpoint, one isolated structure there, a little larger than the one that's already there, the prefabricated one. I think completes this site. It's appropriate across from wonder like. So I think that's the purview and the difference of opinion here. I have complete confidence, the safety of raising livestock, having done it myself. And I know there's so much flexibility and the different abilities to do it. Thanks. Bernie, any other member of the public, the room we're online, I wish it's the comment regards to this. Patricia has her hand raised again. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I just didn't lower it after I spoke last time. Sorry about that. No other members of the public are online. Okay. Alright. I'll open it up for board discussion. Anyone have any final thoughts or comments on the project? One would be, and they, uh, asking the law's opinion that concern was that there recess lighting fixtures and the upstairs loft and, uh, oh, scale bathroom makes them feel that it's not really just for horses. Is that something that why would it be so completely built out to be a residence or, you know, else. I'll just know, yeah, it's, it's not uncommon for barns to have full bathrooms. It's often who do barn stuff tend to like to have full bathrooms in their barn to change before going, bringing that back into the residence. It's just a common feature. We see again, that's been answered multiple times in the narratives and the explanation. And you could see the separation of the bathroom. It's not connected to a room. I've made as many moves as I can. No different than a pool house to not be on septic. The same concept, right? It's it's purely for support space. I'm going to question about glass. Since it's bar, have you ever ever changed risk to terms? Last. Or have you not considered those? We have not considered those. I'm not familiar with products that. Other than glass and the insulation properties as well. Well, I mean, one of the things brought up by LEHC was. other than glass and the insulation properties as well. Well, I mean, one of the things brought up by LEHC was the issue right now in that last heat wave, right? You have these old barns that are exposed in the heat gain. I mean, the ability to ventilate and protect is a huge one. So a new structure can do it, and that is one of the reasons that horses and other animals are having issues because the structures are outdated to the climate we have right now. I mean, that's a more macro level opinion of mine, but those are things we can solve in a newer structure that they can't in an older garden. Any other comments? I know we have a dwell on the I got asked to start on the day. I'm hoping the time I ever see a person who I'm most well asked to end me. But I have to start. It was very well set back. It's very, very good. I'm going to add that to people that I think I've been asking. That. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is formal designer view. There are recommended conditions of approval in the staff report. And so if the ASRB finds the project acceptable, you can recommend approval with the conditions of approval in the staff recommended in staff report. And just to point out that those conditions also do clarify one to make sure we're addressing these items. These are more technical items that aren't on the plans at this stage, as well as the ability for staff to work with the LEHC subcommittee to further ensure that we create a structure that is livable for livestock. So with that, if you do recommend approval. I'd like to make that. Sure. Second that motion. Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Comra. Yes. Oberligavio. Yes. The remilment. Yes. Number taft. Yes. Motion moves. Thank you. Thank you. I'm leaving now. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the third project, 385 more road. Hi, everyone. Hope you're having a wonderful start to week. This evening, I'm going to be going over a conceptual design review project proposal for 385 more road. The project scope includes construction of a new two-storey single family main residence with an attached garage, detached accessory dwelling unit, well, an associated site improvements on a vacant lot that is located at 385 more road. There is one desk item pertaining to this agenda item. It's the map that we included. The applicant, it's a very kindly read through the staff report in advance of this meeting and did make one modification regarding the measurement of setbacks. Per our code, we do require that setbacks are measured from the interior boundary of ingress and egress easements that are not used exclusively for this property. There is a front easement that is not used exclusively for this property as well as a driveway and public utilities easement that is shared between this property in 385 more road. So those two did need interior boundary easement measurements. The applicant has revised up to you guys and has shown that the proposed structure as it stands is compliant with setbacks accounting for those modified measurement mechanisms. During the review of a future application for formal design review, the town will make the determination if the project is exempt from or subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Just as a quick overview of the property itself, the subject property is approximately 8.76 acres gross and 7.99 acres net excluding easements for road right of ways which are not used for the exclusive use of the law in which the easement is located. All site calculations for this project in terms of your TFA, Max main resident size, things of that nature are conducted using the net lot size of 7.99 acres per what's had municipal code section 153.005. 385 more road falls within the SCP zoning designation. The subject property is located off of more road, and the site is visible from Interstate 280, which is a state designated scenic highway. The property falls within the boundaries of a town designated scenic corridor. More road is a private road extending between Woodside Road to the north and past 389 more road to the south, where the road terminates at a private driveway. And a town designated stream corridor does extend along the southern end of the property and drains into Atherton Creek. For a little bit more zoomed-in context, 385 more road was created by a land division in 2014. At the time, the project did establish a building in pool envelope, which we can see marked on the topographic map and site survey for the plans. Essentially, that means all above ground improvements are going to be limited to this pool and building envelope with the exception of the ADU, which can be as close to four feet to our property line for shake code. And the site, this project did go through ASRB and had an approved project a couple years back. So there might be some name recognition here as it did have a more recent approval. However, that project didn't ever proceed with development in the site currently remains vacant. So we are operating under a vacant property here. The preliminary title report and topographic survey associated with this project identified a number of easements on the property, including the following. Thank you as I go through this comprehensive lift for your patients, 50 foot wide ingress easement and private utilities easement. That's along the Northwestern property boundary, a 60 foot vehicle access easement, ingress and egress and for private utilities as well. That's along the Northwestern boundary of the parcel, a 200 foot wide conservation easement and stream corridor easement along the southern end of the property, a 15 foot wide easement for road purposes at the front of the property along more road, a 15 foot equestrian trail easement along the southern property boundary, and a 10 foot peachy easement along the southern boundary as well. The site ranges in elevation from approximately 170 feet along the northern property line to approximately 60 feet along the central line of the on-stream corridor, to approximately 70 feet on the property southernmost corner. The property contains more than 100 trees with mature trees around the southern, eastern, and northwestern property lines and additional scatter trees within and adjacent to the building envelope and within the on-site conservation easement. Little wordy, thank you for your patience on that. The proposed main residence is a two-story single-family home with an attached garage located in the boundaries of the building and pool envelope established by the restrictive covenant associated with the property's land efficient. As you can see here, we also have heart-scape affiliated with this property, a new sitting area, a new pool, some patio spaces, and it attached ATUS previously mentioned. The main residence is modeled after the French provincial style, and the facade includes a wide variety of detailing, as previously mentioned. The main residence is modeled after the French provincial style. The facade includes a wide variety of detailing, including columns, coins, venestration of variable sizes forms in sashes, decorative railings, lighting with invisible bulbs, and exterior trims. The proposed main residence is a two-story, largely symmetrical building, which has greater massing than typically seen in woodside developments. In pre-application meetings and initial rounds of project review, the staff has expressed outstanding concerns regarding the design of the main residents, as the culmination of the exterior detailing and massing on the proposed home creates a sense of formality that does not typically align with the town's role character, as outlined in the town's residential design guidelines. The residential design guidelines do encourage applicants to strive for simplicity in their designs and restrain the use of excessive detailing to be compatible with the Towns rural vernacular. Furthermore, building heights in bulk should be limited in response to site typography and neighborhood conditions. The ASRB, we do ask that you discuss the massing and detailing and embellishments of the proposed mean residents as they pertain to the projects alignment with the residential design guidelines. The ASRB should discuss potential mediations to design formality, including binoclinated to reducing the amount of detailing, minimization of bulk, etc. Although floor area calculations will be confirmed at the formal design review level, the applicant has included preliminary floor area calculations will be confirmed at the formal design review level, the applicant has included preliminary floor area calculations with conceptual design review. And based on their preliminary calculations, this project will require a maximum main residence size during the formal sign review process level. The proposed main residence has been measured at approximately 29 feet, 7 inches in height, and at its most extreme difference between existing grade and the structureage. And it is therefore compliant with our 30 foot maximum height. In addition to the main residence, the site proposal includes approximately 836 square foot detached AD located on the not northwest property line. The ADU closely mirrors the proposed main residence in both design and materials. And the proposed detached ADU design measures at 15 feet 4 inches, and it is therefore compliant with the maximum accessory established by the Woodside Municipal Code. While the overall ADU height is compliant with the maximum accessory structure height for the zoning district, the tallest plate height has been shown a little bit variable between a couple sheets. It's currently marked on one sheet as over in one portion of the structure. We do need to be compliant within 11 foot late height, maximum for accessory structures. However, I have had brief discussion with the architects and they're planning to resolve that so that there's uniformity across all plan sheets. So they do anticipate moving that towards compliance with the 11-foot maximum plate height permitted. Materials for the proposed main residents would include succco, slate roofs, aluminum windows, and aluminum guard rails. The provided digital materials board provides a proposed color palette that includes shades of white, gray, and black. The ASRB should discuss whether a vision for the proposed color palette should be implemented in order to increase the alignment of residential design glides, preference for muted colors that blend in with the natural landscape. These recommendations should account for the project's potential visibility from a designated scenic highway and adjacent properties. The project plan includes removal of 10 trees within the footprint of the proposed development consisting of oaks and pines. Of the 10 trees proposed removal, eight trees total meet the significant tree definition pursuant to Woodside Municipal Code Section 153.005. Well the applicant has called out 10 trees removal, three additional trees are shown within the foot of the driveway and the planter retainings that they are showing on the property next to the seating area. So the applicant should clarify during formal design review whether they're going to slightly move those site improvements or whether they're going to remove those trees from the property. Partise submitting for formal design review, all revisions should be clear. And the proposed design will be retaining over 100 mature trees on the property with preservation of trees along the southern, eastern and northwestern property lines. Members of the project team for 385, more road are present at this meeting. They're going to be giving us a little bit of a more comprehensive overview of the design components associated with this project shortly. And the staff is happy to answer any additional questions regarding application of residential design guidelines or the code on this project that you have at this time. Thanks for your patience. I know this is a bit of a longer one, but any questions happy to help? Thanks. Anyone on the board have questions for staff? is on property for that 387 access easement. A portion of it does fall in 385 more road, but property boundaries has not been included within the net lot area for the property because it is for shared access. So they don't get any like bumps in the size of the structure due to that, given that it's not solely affiliated with their property but it does fall within their property boundaries. I have a question. It's more on the design and you you summarized it very nicely of what are the requirements are by lines. At what point in the process is you convey this kind of things. I mean, they come to you a while ago with ideas with a French tree. I'm just wondering if it's news to them hearing the comments over time, or has this been ongoing? What was the process? Yeah, absolutely. So I didn't complete the preliminary applicant meeting with the applicants, however, Sage did complete that preliminary meeting. And there was initial conversations about an alignment to the residential design guidelines. We had some small changes that needed to be made to this plan set in order to ensure its compliance with the actual municipal code. So at that time, we did issue an incomplete letter for their first submittal on this project and we again put in a rather substantive comment set addressing on alignment with the residential design guidelines. I did have conversations with the architect who had touch base at their homeowner and they indicated that they weren't comfortable making changes until they got a little bit more guidance from you all regarding how we would like to make modifications and or preferred methodologies to make modifications. However, they have been informed or on alignment since the beginning of this design process and since their preliminary pre-application meeting with Sage. I think Gillian's very thorough. It's that I had an initial meeting with the architect early on. It's primarily to answer questions that they had from a technical stya point. During that meeting, they had some of the design kind of flushed out and I did provide some of those comments about formality. And then as Jillian noted with the application review there were some comments that we outlined in the incomplete letter as well as we had an opportunity to meet with the architect after that incomplete letter went out. And you know this is one of those things where a property owner is really has a kind of specific design in their mind. And sometimes it's acceptable for certain sites. You get into the Las Polgues of States. Those buildings are much different than a lot of buildings in Woodside. And so it's really a determination that is this something appropriate for the site. If so, or if there's some modifications that might need to be made, it's really, the intent of this conceptual design review process to get some early feedback. So staff has expressed some feedback early on. And then now the ASRB can opine and determine if there are necessary changes that need to be made, if not, you know, can move the project forward without recommendations. So I think at this time, the owner and the architects are really looking to see, you know, what changes may be necessary if any at all. Are there any other or staff? Otherwise we'll move on to the applicant's presentation. Do you need a break? I'm going to take two minute break. Final section for staff before we move on to the applicant. Yeah. I had a question in regards to slope. It does appear trying to transpose the survey to the placement of the home. It does appear to be a part of the home that falls within this 35% slope. It's visible on the surveys. How is that going to be addressed? Yeah, so we have received, and I believe it's an attachment affiliated with your staff report that was issued. The project engineers did issue us a letter indicating that the slope that falls within the building in site development footprint was created through non natural interventions. There were some runoff issues from parcel a affiliated with the original broader property that was subdivided. And it's the belief and the study of the engineers and they have made the assertion that that runoff did cause non-natural slopes in excess of 35 percent. Per town precedent, we typically do permit development on slopes in excess of 35 percent. So long as a licensed civil engineer is able to certify that those slopes are man-made in prior to being man-made or 35 percent or less, they have made that assertion at this time. I'll just further clarify on that. This was actually something that occurred before the subdivision. I worked on the subdivision project. And it was always intended that that area would need, that slump need to be fixed as part of any development project. And there wasn't any significant geotechnical issue in which that could not be accomplished. And it was caused by water though? Yeah, it was all determined to be a man made slow as part of the subdivision and it was understood that that development could would be able to occur in that area. And final question is this driveway that's going to be built in the easement. So if the neighboring property 387 is developed at some point in the future, will they will share that driveway or access to both properties. The property does contain a private section branching expert in towards the building and will envelope, which will be for the exclusive use of 385 more. And then the other property does have easement-based rights to continue developing, drive way through the property to access 387. At that time, it's assumed that that portion that extends beyond 385's access point would be for the exclusive use of 387. Got it. And just know it's actually a requirement that they share this driveway. The subdivision, you can restrict access of certain parts. Same with they had the same restriction on the back of their property at the 280. And so it is it was a requirement of the subdivision as was designed for them to share the driveway, which in turn you see a handful of the trees that need to be removed or in that location. That's always been anticipated for the development of the two properties. Since you were in the room, I was curious what the motivation for that restriction was. I'm sorry. What was the motivation for that restriction? Oh, um, the minimized the number of driveways into the, onto Moor Road. You know, part of the project itself was, you know, the town doesn't discourages panhandle lots or flag lots and doing subdivisions. The council landed up being okay with this as long, this share driveway as long as it didn't create other further curb cuts, so to speak, into more room. So basically just to clarify, there's that when you go down the road, there's that space at the, there's a home, then you, and that's 3 to 9, I guess. And then there's a gate that has a lock on it. This is off to the side of the gate. And that's correct. The go down to, is that the share gate? Yeah, yeah. This, they have, you know, the applicant I know we issued a permit for a new gate there. I don't know if it's been installed or not yet. That was from pretty seven more roads. So the three and seven more road has an approved project. It was actually a project approved on this site as well as dressably different. And I believe it's probably expired since. But yes, there's also their entrance, the shared entrance is also acts and has an easement recorded to act as a vehicle turnaround for the streets because there's no turnaround at the end of the street. So that was incorporated as part of the subdivision. So they cannot gait off that particular area. That would be for whether it's a fire truck or any member of the public who finds himself at the end of that street, they could turn around in that area. Not sure if this question really should be directed to the applicant. But as a frequent commuter on Highway 280, which is designated as Synic Coated, or it is hard without a topo collocated with the outline of the project. It is difficult to figure out what will I see driving on 280, looking up, assuming it's safe, will I see the house or it would not be visible? I think the applicant has done some light renderings that'll help answer that question in their upcoming presentation. So if you have any outstanding questions after that, they might be able to progress visibility clarity just because they have more renderings available. And then Justin observation clearly style wise. It is more in nature of wash out as hills or afterton. But I'm a big proponent of if no one, not too many people should or in the order of once this style let it be. But it's clearly rather non-typical for wood side. But for that reason, the only concern would be how it's visible or invisible it is from 280. Everything else is pure academic. Another piece that'll be helpful, the next step or we end up with this is story polls will help with that once those are installed. Yeah, there will probably be some minimal visibility. The house is angled in a certain way that you wouldn't see kind of the French country meets so Parisian style is the guardrails. So if guardrails are not visible from the freeway, no one cares. That's my subjective view. Hey, I think that's a segue to the applicant's presentation. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for giving us time to present today. My name is Malka Jineh and I'm the project architect. Our clients are really sad that they could not be here today. They were traveling, sage and Jillian were, have been amazing to work with. They have been talking to work with. They have been talking to us for quite some time and guiding us. And they said that, you know, there is no meeting in August. So there is this chance if you guys want to get feedback. And we did call our clients. And unfortunately, they are stuck in a country which is having a lot of rights. And there are no phone lines in internet connection. So they did manage to get hold of us literally last second and I think we had two days to submit and they said, please proceed forward because they are in a time crunch, their parents are moving in with them and there's a deadline when they want the house done, which I'm trying to tell them realistically never happens on time. But, you know, so they said we don't want to waste another month. That's why we are here and they are not here. So we want to just apologize on their behalf. This is very important for them. So it's not as if they're not here just because they don't care. Meanie, she's our lead designer working on this project with me. I'm the project architect. I just want to start with the formality of the project and why we've been talking to Sage and kind of having a lot of discussion on the design front. Why we thought it'd be better for us to come to the board and get feedback because of how we were approaching this site. So we can go to the next slide. I'm sorry, you'll be my clicker. But our clients bought this property as you were informed, there was a previously approved project on this site. It was a larger project, more complex, a lot more, I would say a lot more impact to the site. Our clients needs are not that drastic. They do have some very strong personal preferences and they actually looked at the site quite a bit and the neighbors before they bought this property. We have been engaged in talking to the neighbor who's not we but our clients have been who has a permit already and it's their easement which is going through the property. As you can see on this map, which we've already gone through, we have 280 corridor right there, our site is 385, and then we have 50, 60, and then 389. The reasons these four addresses are on this site because we are gonna show you what these four projects look like. Because because we are going to show you what these four projects look like. Because before we start any design work, we get clients who really want to build something which our job is to guide them if it's possible and gently explain them why it might not be possible, but also on their behalf do an investigation as to what they're asking for. Is it even feasible? So we actually did that prior to starting the design work on this property. Go next. It is a, I don't know if a lot of you have visited the site. I think with, um, Pat, you mentioned that I guess you know which road it is because there is a gate there. This is our site right in the middle. 50 more road is the neighbors on the left side. Right side is our easement which goes to the other property. There is 280. I'll be very honest putting our life in danger which shouldn't have. Try to see if you could get a picture from 280. Look at this side. And first we are not allowed to do any drones on 280 so we couldn't do that. It just wouldn't let it fly. We try to get our drone close to 280. It just wouldn't go. Which was okay. But there is a lot of vegetation on 280 at that end and our site is actually lower. So we were not able to really get any images from there. So we are hoping that the story pulls when they're up, it'd be easier if anything is visible to be able to see it from 280. We can go to the next slide. This is just a little bit before we get into our project just to get you oriented. That's the edge, the best we could figure out with the oak that we are saving and all the trees, where our edge of that pool seating area and then the 80-year roof would be, just to give you an idea how far away we are. We are about nearly 1,000 feet from 280 to the furtherest part of our project. So we just wanted to put that in just for context purposes. And you can see it's a very barren site, but we have a lot of vegetation on left and right side, which we are very happy with. You can go to the next slide. So we want to show you what are the projects that we looked at. Now, these are not a visible that much, but thanks to technology and Google Earth, this is how we don't spy on neighbors, but this is how we kind of do our research as to what's happening in the neighborhood. Sometimes it's not easy for us to sit and go for hours looking at micro-fishing towns to see. But as you can see, these are direct neighbors of our project. And as you can see, they are very formal designs. These are not barn designs, these are not homes. And I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. It's very subjective, the styles. But we just wanted to put a context as to where we were coming from. We were looking at what's in our neighborhood. How is it impacting 280? In fact, I believe 50 more is really close to 280 because that's the one which is on the left side closer to the 280 marker which was in the previous slide. So we just wanted to show and start our presentation with this context that we don't start design work without really researching what's happening in the neighborhood. And thanks to Nini, she's spent like hours trying to get these images, which were really helpful for us to share with you, because I know when you drive there, you won't be able to see any of this. And of course, as landscaping is being put in, things get matured, you get more privacy. We can go to the next one. So this is our site. I keep telling our clients they are blessed with a ton of easements on this site. This was not an easy site to work with. It is a massive site, but I would say mostly I would say over 65, 70% is unbuildable. And there's a sliver in the middle which is just perfect for us, but it starts at a very narrow end. We can go to the next slide. I don't know if we added that, but if you look at the site plan, I'm not going to bore you with all the stuff written on the left. We'll go through that in a minute, but if you look at the site plan, you can see the contours under our project. Now you can see our dilemma because the dotted lines you see around the house, that's the setback line. And of course the ADU is allowed to encroach in the setback. But as you can see, this is a very, very tight site. Now the more further down we go, the more difficult it becomes for us to bring the drive-in compliance. The more we move down, then we have to bring the fire truck here, which becomes a little bit more challenging. We work with Liam Brayes. They are amazing civil engineers. They've worked in this. I think they did the subdivision also. So that's why we ended up working with them and we done a ton of projects with them. We actually work backwards. We work with the fire department. There is a turnaround right at the fork that is being shared by the two properties. This is the max we can be without putting another massive area further below. Now we did include another turnaround a little bit on our property. But these are all things. I'm just giving you a background as to why the house is located where it is. Second in our company, we try not to disrupt the site too much. Regardless what the house looks like, we want to make sure that we are retaining the site footprint as much as possible and not affecting earth movement too much. We did try and keep as many of these trees as we possibly could, as you can see, we really don't have much choice in that upper corner. We really, really shuff the house as close to the set-back line as we could. And we have worked with Leanne Bray's, our soils engineers, to really retain this oak next to the pool. It is a beautiful tree and our clients really, really wanted to retain it. It did give us a little bit of a heartburn in the beginning, but it's really pretty tree and we are hoping that, we won't have to move the house further because it's just gonna impact that tree. But you can see the contour lines. The way our setback is done, the contour lines are not really in a very perfect angle. No matter what we do with the house, the control lines are not really parallel. We just, it's just not possible for us to do it any other way. Okay, go next. We can just go next. This is more stuff. So I just wanted to kind of touch upon the formality as has been stated. Actually, before I go further just looking at this image, I was actually very happy that there was a first project before us, the number one project that got approved. It has the same color scheme, same material, and absolutely the same stone. So I was very happy to see that. Our house is actually not visible and we'll show you in a minute, even from more screen. We are minus 25 plus minus 25 feet below the road. This is kind of that frontage which is facing more road. So we are kind of recessed in. We did keep normally for these styles. You need to have quite a few steps leading up to the property. We wanted to keep it really low slugs. So we kind of kept only two steps going in. Next. Roof pitches. We work with our clients and convince them that, you know, we know this is a French ghetto look you want, but we just cannot go with the 912 roof. And we worked it as best as we could to retain the style and still keeping it low profile. This is the rare that we thought is kind of more important, I think for everyone because it's kind of going down the hillside. We have actually stepped and walked through the project and we then, when their first time, the whole discussion was that we want to step down the hillside as best as we can. And as you saw that the contours are not really in our favor. So we worked with Lee and Brayes and with the town's requirements of retaining walls and the ADU height structure and the access to the driveway and we did step the house down, you know, the second floor then to the first floor living room. We went to three and a half feet lower and then the ADU is further lower and this is how we've kind of tucked this into the hillside. We did remove the tree from the rendering because it kind of takes over the house, but that oak tree is actually right outside this pool in this corner in the bottom right side. And this is just something that I was talking about earlier, kind of just lowering the project as we are going down the hill and making it more one story as we proceed down. They would have preferred a one story house, but there is just no way we could do that without adding steps. That is something it is very important for them not to have because of the two sets of parents who might be moving in with them. Just giving it another angle from the, as I call it, the front, because this is facing the more dry. This is the gate I think you were talking about, which is the easement, which goes in and it shares the driveway with us and with our neighbor. We just wanted to show you this is where we are. It's a very dark picture, but the site slopes down. We did a second image we'll show you next. That's got the rendering in it. We've just put this rendering without any vegetation because we just wanted to show what's there. That's about a nearly 25 foot drop from Morrode. And if I go to the next slide, you'll be able to see, I mean, there already a lot of vegetation there, but we are gonna be putting screening in this house is not gonna just like the other homes that we showed you. If you drove around, you wouldn't see any of them. So we just wanted to show you that our home is actually not going to be visible from here. We've tried our best and we don't think it's visible from 280 either. So overall we think we've been kind of trying to make the site work without impacting the overall dirt removal too much. We are clients with very specific, no basement for the reason, not that because they weren't happy that they can get more space. It's just like the idea is not to impact it too much even though it's a very formal design, but the footprint is not to impact it too much even though it's a very formal design, but the footprint is the footprint. And we wanted to make sure that we were being very careful how we were putting this house on this site. So you just wanted to share with you that we have a lot of constraints with setbacks, easements on every corner. The lower part is all sloped and we work with Lee and Bray's just because the original project that got approved, they had a lot of historic knowledge that they've been guiding us with. But we are here to answer any questions that you have and we are looking forward to guidance from the board here so we can go to the next step. I might start just with all disclosure. About 13 years ago we lived on the road. The second place. And we lived there. And I raised my chin. Oh, awesome. And we lived there. So something. Yeah, so I know that. So you know, well, I also know this property. Extremely well. I have a young boy, his friend, the dynasty, and they used to, their friends lived off of Valley Fort. And I was a Oh, that way. That way. So please, the dirt bike. You're a good boy. That's how I know about that. But we're the worst trails. Yeah, because there's so many easements. I know. I do. Well, there wasn't an easement. We just sat with the easiest way to get there without going down around the house. It is a public site. You have to guess the question. I have to say it is very, this approach to me. I mean to say it's not, this is the scenic corner that you, all of those houses, a lot of those houses on Valley Court Hill, that's happening. That's Woodside, our Vidsfall. And that law is quite wide and bright theater. So I'm having trouble kind of buying into that it's not this. And that's why we are hoping that the story polls will help all of us because we tried. Even we had another house that came before us that was across the way at Oberon Well, which is on the other side of the freeway. And the residents on Moore Road complained about that. So there can't be both. You know, you can't see one way and not see the other way. So I am questioning that just having so much time under my cell. I was much younger. We were, to be fair, we were actually focusing on 280 itself and not across the thing. So that is something I'm hoping. I'm no, I am. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm hoping that again, the story pulls is the easiest way for all of us to be able to really see. And that is, I think, when we have to do it as the formal design review. Yeah. So this project does require a planning commission entitlement. So given that they are going to go to planning commission or grading on this property, it is not required that they installed story polls for conceptual design review. As the applicants have outlined, we were also kind of coming up on a short deadline to make sure that they got in an anticipation of August recess. So Story Poles were not installed at this time, but they will be installed in advance of planning commission. Yes, on the Lyndon Brook project that was a White House, but it was non-seeing for. It just took the way underneath. You know, no one can see it. There's just a few horses right across the street from it, and that's about it. So I'm just a little confused. And these aren't questions, these are more common. So I'll let the other people on committee ask you the questions, but I do have some concerns. I have no need of property and the street, as well as I do, because it was almost a lot of the rural character, the barns and everything. So these houses, I know some of these houses, and the one particularly right next to it again, that was before to where 280 was ever built and that was the showcase design arms. And that was grandfathered in those houses were built in the 20s and not just sitting on the comments. It's not played, they're not new. I mean, in terms of visibility, I would like to see a vegetation plan. You should see how the vegetation would screen it from 280 and other areas, but at least in terms of the color. And I'm going to mean something from the design. I have a lighter color should be used in settings where they are appropriate, such as menas as opposed to menad for us. And this is definitely not a menad for us. It looks much more like a menad to make. And then so I don't, yes, it's a French hatateau in stone and light stone, but the light of color according to the design guidelines bits. And if it was a farmhouse versus French chateau, I don't know if it would come off the same way. So far in my Anselaer view of the design guidelines as we've been sitting here. I don't see anything that says one style over another is preferred at what's that. Is that a question? It's my statement of observation. Okay, so let's thank thank you for that presentation. There may be questions. Let's actually focus on questions for the applicant. I don't have any before we move into word discussion. Yeah. Did you consider using more than just the white material throughout? Like when I'm looking at the the fire pit area and it's such a mass, so white and stark, any consideration. So for landscaping, we, to be very honest, didn't spend any much time on that as yet, except we wanted to get the heart scape in in time for the meeting. But for the house we did look, this is a cream limestone that we are looking at with the Venetian cream plaster. For, again, we are here for feedback to see what we can take back to our clients. If you can go back to the slide, which is where we are seeing the whole property where you see 280. Or the cornerstones, the limestone and that. Yes. And then if you, I just want to because of what we just said earlier. Yes. So as you can see, as I said, we have a lot of trees, but just on the outskirts of the property, everything else is just there. So we are looking at you for guidance of how you think we need to blend this in and take it back to our clients. But again, what we were recommending and what we already have that oak and then we are planning to plant trees around that pool area and stuff because there's no way they can landscape that entire hillside and it doesn't look that great. So we are going to be shielding that and also shielding the house by Swarza. So we're looking at you from guidance, but we had looked at quite a few materials and these are the ones that our clients are really comfortable with. Have you studied probably the noise from 280? Yes, we are going to be using the triple-closed windows. Three triple-way windows. using the triple clased windows. Three triple window windows. Yeah, triple plane windows. We have actually did a little bit of a study. The interesting thing is at second story, we have more of a bounce. Lower areas we haven't had that much. So we do understand it's going to be more the sleeping quarters, just because our site is set down from 280 and not up. So there is a little bit of a difference there, but we have that in mind. Yeah. I do have fun. Considering the zoning of the size of a lot, the reason why you've been planning one of the living spaces to be a junior ADU can take advantage of the 280 ADU. Any of you allow us? Basically, the ADU is the only requirement they have for their parents and then they have kids. If you look at the floor plan, it's mostly the family kind of gathering area on the first floor where the grandparents can also come. The other generation, so it's's three generations in the house. So all the sleeping cells are up, except the grandparents which are in ADU. So they really didn't have any specific requirement for another junior ADU. We have enough space in the ADU if they need some nursing help in the future. Let me just comment. Well, I will end with a question. It's beautifully designed, or the lot, which is very difficult to fit your design in. And apparently the clients who certainly have their own set of mind mind and it's difficult to change that. If the question is, again, the view from the 280, you're saying that story pose would answer that question. I think it's important to kind of keep track of the landscaping which may shield it from the view, not to evaluate that scenic corridor. And the funny question is, when would someone put a Toyota company in that rendering? I should tell that to the renderer. It's the same thing. The rendering rendering when you look at the house, there are so many different iron design details. That's just rendering. That's not your intention. So right now they are of course not thought out or really like flushed out details. But the idea is to have some sort of those details at the windows and doors and that upper. As you can see, they're not really balconies, right? But they're more like French balconies. So we want to make sure that those details are going to be done nicely. But we wanted to make sure that we are not just sending your rendering and then coming afterwards with all these things. We want to at least put our design intent in front of you to get feedback that we are coming with this iron grills and things like that. Then when it gets to fencing somewhere down the line with having the iron grills, how would that work with our rural community view? Oh, you're talking about the fencing on the property? Yes. Oh, we are focusing on just deer fence with a lot of vegetation. The idea is not to have this and we do have, we had discussed a gate, but it will be tucked in where it comes because we have an easement so we can't put a gate there. It will be you come in and then it will be a gate coming into our property that has not been designed as yet. We will be hopefully working with Zitair, the landscape architects on that. But the idea and towards more and that is, I mean, it's a huge property. We are, they are definitely not thinking of any iron thing because you, we don't want to see it. They are more into plants. So the idea is to just plant it from wherever we can. Any other questions? Anyone from the public in the room or online have questions on this project? There are no members. There's no one online. Good. All right. Then close the public hearing and open it up for board discussion. Who would like to pick a thought? You speak in the like. I will make one more comment about color. One of the first pop things I looked at when I joined the SRB was when we reviewed. I think it was 70 Valley Court, which has a much very similar color palette. We were just looking at the pool. Right. But it falls into our purview. It's the pool. Valley Court? I was just a pool. No, no. Right. My entire program. So 70 Valley Court. You guys were looking at just a pool at that time. What member, middleman might also be referring to it's a very formal building. And that was built probably about 10 to 15 years ago, the most, probably about 10 to 12 years ago. What's Amaro says? The one first one on the left hand side, the Tuscan home there. Yeah, on More Road. Yes, that's older. I I mean, that's older. I've been here for about 16 years. I was well before that. No, I'm, yeah, first. It won't be. It's not the way. Yeah, that, I mean, that, that would, I'm just referring to that, that was before. It's at least 15 years ago. Yeah. 15 years ago. Yeah, so the point I was trying to make is that that property also found our Ferville for design guidelines and that was approved with a similar color palette. I don't know. That's the only thing that we know. The stage was right. The house was free approved. We were we were specifically looking at a relocation of the pool. You guys were looking at a relocation of a pool. It's just the house color was previously approved some years ago. My point is that that house falls under the woodside design and woodside that house was not approved by us. It had to be a somewhere along the line. It was approved by the ASRBM Planning Commission. Just not this part, just not this... If in committee but still... So the half you this specific board members looked at the pool. The house that is under construction was previously approved by previous ASRB members and planning commissioners. That's important. No, that that's all and that is that is the border of woodside. You have to drive through Atherton to get there. But that right at 70 Valley Court is the border of Woodside. And that was my point. That's great. That's great. Also to your point, when we went there, there was so much stone. Every ounce of the property was covered and it was kind of feeling massive to say the least. This does not feel as massive as a problem. I don't think so. I mean, I have some concern about that whole fire pit area, but I recently was in Santa Rosa and saw something very similar to that and it does have a mass to it, but I kind of feel like the material is what's going to calm it down a little bit. Yeah. Any additional thoughts or comments or feedback? No. This doesn't have to do it on it. It doesn't have any of those role on it. It is on a scene in Florida that people will see. And the neighbors want more road. We'll see this. There are some older houses, the Davies house, the was part of the daily house or the other house. It seems to be built in the 20s and 30s. They haven't had nonsense. And then the big houses that you really see are the ones in that I think if you're climbing down more road, the houses, the first one on the right is in the old farmhouse. There are a lot of farmhouses. This isn't the style that I think says, this is a rural community. Why I think it's pretty and it might be pretty in some places, it just doesn't seem that the owners or the designer who thought it's even a lot about our kind of like so. Maybe two of me and Sean specifics again, closer to 280. There's a pretty large dissipation of it which lay and Leigh and Braze planned. So in the planting plan, maybe noted that it should not be as visible from 280, not only the house. And the landscape wall is much closer to the freeway than being housed itself. So very much like the swing pool area on Valley Court, there's a similar consideration. It would be visible, all probability, the wall will be visible. But the house is supposed to be discreetly poised and hopefully she proof that it would not be the minute and highway to 80. I'm kind of feeling like it's so interesting. Sorry. It's so interesting with what's going on in Woodside right now to try and restrict someone from building a French provincial home when you've got element housing element going on. So I'm kind of like, ugh. So I'm having a tough time in thinking that we should restrict someone. If they want to build a style that's not rural, how can we make it a little rural? Maybe we push back to add some stone to it. Maybe it doesn't have to entirely be a white home with black windows. If maybe the cornerstones are changed and they seem a little more rustic, woodside rural kind of vibe, that might get it to be more palatable for people instead of everything just being white, white, white. If that wall to the to the fire pit area had a different stone and maybe that's a multi-textural type or multi-tonal type to me that would feel like you're making the effort instead of this just being totally random. There's white farm houses with black trim. It's not the black and white, I think really. There's a lot of black and white. Seriously, but that's not. It's more than barmed. Yeah, exactly. It's here. Yeah, it's totally here. And I'm all for individuality personally, but. Two cents. Right. So I'm not hearing any concerns about the scale or how it's masked, how the various volumes are being organized and treated. I'm not hearing concerns about visibility from more road, but everyone stressing the importance of the visibility from 280. It's pretty minimal right? It's very discreet. So, so story polls might really help us to be able to. I just personally, I feel like to encourage this type of design to keep having them go down to have them invest more money and story hold. Maybe I just I mean for me personally I can't approve this it is not a wood side house. It doesn't need any of our suggestions of guidelines requirements at all and as much as I think people should be able to build their house, I mean, there's they knew going in that they could come to the town, they could talk to Jillian and say, come up with ideas and look at other houses that have been built. So I just don't want to encourage this to go any farther, but I mean, the only one that feels that way. And I do find it to the next step. Planning director mentioned that we have homes in Las Pulgas estates that many of them reflect similar attributes, but none of those sit within a scenic corridor. I think the concern here if I tried to summarize it is that regardless of what attempts are made to disguise this home through landscaping, it's going to be a fairly signature home driving north on 280 as you approach woodside and I think that's the biggest concern. I'm hearing from my fellow members. I'm sure you're going to appreciate majority of projects we review our contemporary farm homes for lack of a or early generic description, But that's most of what we see. And this style, this approach is fairly rare for us to deal with. I think what you're hearing is our sort of reaction to it. It's like we're a little uncomfortable with it. If we try to get specific about what is it that we're reacting to, I've heard mention of the balcony garden rails, generally the amount of ornamentation, I think we're just generally reacting to like, is rural France the same as rural, Woodside? I think we all feel that no, they're not the same. So I think in summary, I'm going to suggest that, I'm going to make a motion that we actually move to continue this project, to come back with a more design that's more reflective of what design guidelines attempt to describe as suitable for the town of Woodside, which is probably less ornamentation, more subdued and then going to request that because of its placement on a scenic corridor that story polls will be a requirement or passing a conceptual review. Because I think the visibility of this project is ultimately what's going to suitability project given its visibility is ultimately what's going to encourage success. Is that sufficiently summarized as a motion? It is and what I'll just note a couple other things and you guys can tell me just to, what I've heard is looking at materials and colors to possibly braid variations in the colors between materials. Looking at stone versus the stucco as well as the formality of the guardrail designs, the ornamentation of columns, former guardrails, the coins. I'm looking at all these pieces together, not maybe any one component, is what the ASRB is after, but looking at these components in totality and how they could be minimized to reduce the ornamentation, as well as the formalities discussed, and also trying to minimize the visibility not just with landscaping from the scenic corridor. And two install story pools, as noted for conceptual design review, in particular with this type of mass. That is the motion. I can be in motion and the color. Yep. Okay. Very second. We have a second. No. Okay. Anyone want to make a change to the mind? Consider a use of landscaping as a counterweight for all the kind of negative factors we all agree on. So I'm sorry that's to include coming back a contextual design review with more detailed landscape plan. Good. I particularly would like to see diverse. I don't think you could make this in something else that it is. I would like you to go back to maybe post and talk to them and come up with designs that are working to me. Well, we wrap it in by other people and you know, and it's really the material. It's not just the color of stuff, it's that they have wood as a blend in. I mean, the idea is you wouldn't have to screen as how so much kind of blended into the fill site. If you didn't notice it, it was sort of a beige, greenish thing, um, color of, and, you know, spread out a little bit different and there was wood and cedar and things that we see in a lot of the buildings here. That's what I would like to see, but, I mean, they can say what they want. Can we get some more feedback? Okay. Just want clarification so that when we go back and talk to our clients, we have the right information. We normally typically actually don't take on projects in the hillside or in California anymore if they are in high fire zone with what we are putting work, but we are usually using aluminum or charred wood, which is fire resistive. I just want to make sure we are taking the right information back to them. My initial feedback that I was understanding was that yes, it's formal. We should come back with something that can blend in because of the concern of 280 and the formality of the design. That could be done with color scheme and stones and things. Or are we specifically having guidance that it needs to be word? It needs, I just want to clarify it so that I can take the right information back because I know that is something we will not be able to do because we actually are, I don't know how much of where, the town is, I know a lot of our clients who can afford it are actually not having insurances, but we are having major issues with our clients getting insurances since we do a lot of projects in Porto La Valley, Los Altes Hills, Los Gatos. So we are actually keeping with aluminum or charred wood and trying to keep away from any other national material which will be fire hazard. So I just want to make sure that I have the right info so that when we come back. So yeah, as long as their colors, it's not specific. Sorry, to interrupt. We're just still there's some of deliberation. So we emotion and then after whatever the answer be decides, we'll make sure we get all this information to you in writing. Oh, okay. I just wanted to. But I just want to address the question. The question is, like must hit have wood? The answer is no, it must not have. Or it does not require wood, better way to put that, right? So in terms of feedback, it's not that it has to have wood. I think that's just sounds like it's more generally the overall design. So I sat today just to flip through the general guidelines. And I read through the first four pages of the guidelines and I was like, there's nothing in this project that really fits the guidelines, not that we were. So again, you know, it's a challenge to keep to the rural community vibe and try and approve a project that looks totally different. I agree. I mean, I don't disagree with that statement. Although I also don't feel that precedent changes because the members of the sport change. And previous forests have approved houses in the scenic border that this color palette and houses in the areas of Woodside in this style. Yeah, well, I'm not this down. Out this style. Well, that means, stage of the morning's the thing you said about the lost polymers of states? No, the lost polymers of states is a part of town that has very ornate designs. The last one that was approved there probably was over 20 years ago. The 70 Valley Court is a little bit more reasons. But before the most recent residential design design. That's correct. It's a design of 70 cat. It's a very formal design. It has the balustrade railings and yeah. Yeah. No. And this is certainly much more tasteful than that. I was thinking about it. I think in French country style, the designers on the board, color wise, they are not necessarily even, it's color, I think darker colors. It's like gray scale not not as like Mediterranean the bridge it is not country so it is not country so yeah so what really a massive amount of wildies who then use seed. Yes. Right. It was a really, it would be for the hour. But I think the term that's of those who's. Unless it's for modern born, by words, it's, but with this style, combination of, of kind of European style or meet Mediterranean with bright colors that's kind of overloaded. Yeah, I'm not, I'm not. You guys are. So. Okay. So the motion still remains to continue the project. Okay, and so we had a motion. I don't know if anyone's changed their mind to second that motion. Otherwise, there are new motion. I know we have, I have, I mean, I just have some differing. And so we would look to with the majority of the board, I would like to do with the projects. Your options are to continue the item at the conceptual level. And to there's some benefits to that for applicants. I know it does feel like the project is being prolonged. Yet it's before you get into a lot more of the details that are necessary for formal design review. So that's an option. The other option is to provide recommendations to make changes and address those at formal design review at which time they would have more details provided. And it's an option, although one I don't think were there, you know, project designs can be rejected. Typically that usually occurs after, it rarely occurs, but if it occurs, it's something usually that's best offered a continuance with design changes. And then if the applicant comes back and decides they don't want to make design changes, then the board may decide to reject that design. But at this time, the more viable path forward would be to have a continuance with recommendations to come back at the conceptual level or to provide recommendations and have them address that with formal design review. Repeat the motion. The motion was to continue the item of the conceptual design of your level, to reduce the formality and given that it's visibility from the scenic corridor as well as the massing and in reducing formality to look at guardrail designs, the ornamentations such as columns, the coins, the entryway I think is something that could be looked at the guidelines talk about having understated entryways. And then there was other comments about installing story poles to look at the visibility from both more road and the scenic corridor as well as to provide some more details on the landscape plan. And then lastly that I don't think I mentioned just here, but I have it noted is to look at the colors and to darken the tone of the colors and not necessarily having all materials match in the same color to provide some variation in colors. In second that motion. Kind of complex. We'll have it all outlined in a letter form for the applicant. Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Degaveo. I mean, camera. Member Degaveo? Yes. Member Middellman? Yes. Member Taft? Can I abstain? We, it's good to provide a recommendation unless there's a reason to abstain? Yeah, I'm like, you cannot really plan this in the Akatsugi, you cannot really change design. Oh, I mean, the layout is fine. Everything is fine, but how it presents itself is either completely off or it can be subdued. And there are many parameters, many dimensions, in the way, many ways it can be subdued. In any case, difficult tool to imagine how it would look without, of sort of without story poles. Do you propose? Yeah, so it's one of the least. So if it's number one story pose is a must. This is included in the motion. When escaping of screening is there, are you considering color scheme is there? Consider changing, but it would violate the design of the French country, but again, guardrails and such. Those are less noticeable items. There would be nice to look at, nice to change, but just. But the first four items are critical, right? So we have so far three, one, then do you vote favor or get some motion? I will, I will. Yeah, in opinion, I have an opinion. And then do you vote favor or get some motion? I will. I will. I'll end up in the end. I'd say yes. Let's continue. Okay, the motion moves. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get you a letter within the next day or two. Okay. Final thing. So we have no direct's report. No meeting minutes. No. I do have a very piece of sad news that I want to convey to everybody. But this is Sarah Harper Sarah has. Sarah has gotten a upward position move to South San Francisco to be a deputy city clerk. It's not a Thank you for all your support. Thank you for all your support. We won't see you in our next meeting. the router guy. Okay. No other items. It's in the meeting at 638. It's a bittersweet.