I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. member Middleman, member Sullivan, and chair Lindsay is noted absent. Is there a call for changes to the agenda? There are no changes to the agenda. However, you do have one desk item for item number two and it's just to email what the applicant summarizing their neighborhood outreach. Now we're going to, we have public communications, but it's, it's for the public to address the board on any manners that's better not on the agenda or tonight. So if anyone wants to talk about something else now is the time to raise your hand if you're online. Or speak up if you're in the audience. There are no raised hands online. Okay, we'll move right on to the consent agenda. I think we do have the consent agenda, right? And do you want to? So there's just a set of minutes for March 17th, and then the project at 128, who you'll in court, was asked to come back for story polls, intent of forwarding the formal design review to staff. And so if there's no members of the public or on the board that wish to pull the items from the consent agenda, they can be passed with one motion. And everyone's had a chance to look at the material boards for toy and court. On the committee. Is there a motion? And so would you ask the consent agenda with items one and two so it's the minutes and the 128 to a on court. All right, second in motion. Second here. Vice Chair camera. Yes, member Delgavio, member middle Yes. Member Sullivan? Yes. And I guess, agenda, we probably have 445 man's and need is at our first property to discuss. That is the first public hearing I'd have guessed. Well, I'd like to item at 445 man's need away, for conceptual design review by ASRB. This is a presentation and consideration of a proposal to construct an addition and remodel to the main residents, a new vehicle gate and associated site improvements, and no desk items have been received. The subject site is 4.1, 4.51 acres located on Manson either way. There are two existing driveways, one located to the north western side and the other located at the southwestern edge. The topography of the site is relatively flat, but Manzanita Way. And the slope declines significantly towards the eastern portion for the rear of the project site. Air are Goldch Creek designated stream and stream corridor at Woodside, runs along east of the project site. The rear portion of the site is heavily wooded and undeveloped. So the property also includes a six foot wide water line public easement on the north portion of the project site. As well as a ten foot wide public utility easement on the north portion of the project site or on the southern side of the site. These easements as shown on the existing site plan have callouts for separate agreements which would need to be clarified in reference with the specific documentation outlining the terms of the agreement and formal design review. And so at this project site, there are recently issued and completed building permits at the subject site shown on the proposed site plan, which are not shown on the provided to bug top graphics survey of July 2, 2020. And the following table as shown on the staff report outlines the structure that are currently existing and proposed at the subject property. And most structures are issued, but are not yet completed or passed passed final inspection. And so you can see on this topographic survey there are existing structures again that have not passed these final inspections as well as which is something that is not shown on the topographic survey or the recently issued ADU permits at the site, as well as a accessory structure that is labeled as a wellness center. And so this is the existing site plan showing the extent of these structures on the site. So this is the enlarged existing site plan. The applicant is proposing to demolish landscaping and remove a total of 30 formal trees along the western or front portion of the project site. The submitted survey shows trees ranging roughly from 6 to 14 inches in diameter with the species ranging from oak to olive. And in Arbor's report, shall be be submitted alongside the formal design review application. And so the proposed site plan, just showing you what is existing, would extend the main residence significantly along the northern, western and eastern portions of the site. So you can see the extent here, which includes the extension of the garage on the northern side, a new office dish in along the eastern side and a new bedroom addition along the western side of the project site. So these are the elevation plans starting with what is existing for the front. And this is what is proposed for the front. This is the existing elevation for the beer. And this is the proposed elevations for the beer. This is what is what is existing for the south side. This is what is proposed. This is what is existing at the north-side. And this is what is proposed. So the applicant is also proposing a new vehicle gate with a pedestrian entry gate, approximately 28 feet away from the adjacent roadway. provided this the exterior material palette including the steel windows plaster sighting in beige So, provided this the exterior material palette, including the exterior windows, plaster siding, and beige color, wood siding, and stained cedar color, beige limestone stone cladding, standing seam metal roofing, slate tile stone roofing, and blue stone for the exterior papers. Lastly, story poles have been installed at the project site and showing the extent of the story polls alongside the roof plan. So that concludes my presentation. Staff is happy to answer any questions and the applicants are also in attendance tonight. Thank you. That is correct. Do you, well, we went ahead, this point, if the board has any questions, it's out. So, yeah, no, that's okay. Yes, I'm, talk. Good morning to you. Thank you, Robert. I have history with microphones. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm just curious. I'm don't trigger ASRB review. And then if you have an accessory structure in this particular area, you have to add over 2000 square feet. So there is one accessory structure that's not an ADU, but it was less than 2000. So that did not trigger ASRB review. understand. So I understand correctly if the property is building multiple structures and the structures are less than 2,000 square feet of additional footage outside the main residence, the air service doesn't need to seal it. It's not a requirement. And I should clarify in some parts of town if you're Western Hills or seen in Cordo or the threshold is 1,000 square And then the office that looked like it was in the setback, that did not require a variance? So yeah. Or is that down the line? I think that's an ADU. Oh, are you talking about, is it this structure here? Yeah. Okay, so that's been an existing structure, but nonetheless, it's probably compliant. The code allows for a corner encroachment into a setback of up to 10% of the required setback. So I ball in and it's possible if that's compliant, but it is an older existing structure. Understood, thank you. Dave, I have a question, because this really hasn't come up where we've been presented with a new design business to that. Who approves the extra because that's more than what's normally the extra. I think you may be referring to the so the house maximum house size is typically 6,000 square feet and then there's a process for a resident size exception. And the resident size exception is history there and why it's still called an exception, but now the code has been changed and to where it's just a formula. And so basically it's based on your lot size and if you're based on this formula and your lot size the code says you you shall get the extra square footage. So from there, that's just a kind of a technical exercise that residents' size exceptions go with whatever the project requires. So to explain that better, maybe, is if you have a building permit and your house is 6,000 square feet, you kind of maxed out without an exception. You only added 200 square feet onto it. That would just need a building permit, but still need the resident size exception. And at that time, the exception would be approved by staff. And this particular instance, it's running with the review of the ASRB. So it just gets wrapped into that review process. Does not trigger planning commission on of the. It's just based on the size of a lot there used to be special findings. The reason the council did not change it from being exception because there are multiple other places in the code in which a development standard is tied to a house size without an exception. And they didn't go through all the changes. So we've not an exception. It's technically called a residence size exception and that will come with the formal designer view. But the house size itself is just something that more details will have to come with formal designer views. It's very important to make sure they are compliant with what they're allowed with the exception. But from this standpoint of the ASRB, it's just reviewing it from a design perspective. You look at massing and bulk and all that stuff as well. And another way, the house size for lots that are large and wood size, wood size is 800 square feet, and that's 6,000 square feet. It could be, based on the formula. So it could go that large. that always standard terminology that it says it can be a hundred square feet. And it's 6,000 square feet. It could be, yes, based on the formula. So, yes, it could go that large. Did always standard terminology that it says it can be up to a complete rebuild? It's something that staff uses in, if it's notification, given the size of some of these remodels and additions, we like to notify the public that it's possible that that could occur, just given our experience. Sometimes when people get into a building with that significant of a remodel, they find a need to tear down more pieces of a building. So it's more just so the public is aware that that's a potential thing that could occur. Should they get into the details during construction? When we talk about it, the garage might not fully comply with the setbacks. We determine that formal. H3 button three lines. It says a 1.0 to the approximate setbacks for the proposed residents in attached garage would not fully comply with. I think it may be that it has to do with it's something that we need to look at closer with the addition on the front of the building or every one foot year above 17 feet tall. You have to push back into their two feet. So that's something yes that we would have more clarification on with the formal design of you. If they need some minor adjustments there, they could accomplish that, but they also maybe comply would have to look at it closer. Now at this point, do we have a picture of what the gate looks like because part of this is to get a gate of proof. Yeah, it looks like a sketch, but is there a rendering? No, we don't have a rendering. It's just the elevations. We don't work more of the color stuff until the formal design. It's like a preference. Is there any other question? The color of the body of the home is same as it is now. or is it fine with the health? It was noted during the site visit that the applicant is looking to match what is existing at this point. the same as it is now or is it quite difficult? It was noted during the site visit that the applicant is looking to match what is existing at the site. So, we're recording it. You can press the red on the handle and I can adjust the microphone up and down. good, everyone. Hi, thank you for letting me speak on behalf of the project. I'm Ruben Alt with Study Architects and we submitted the application for this edition and remodel. We wanted to specifically address the point regarding the addition and the setback as it relates to building heights over 17 feet. So the exhibit on the screen now, we have added the front property line to show its relationship to that addition, showing the 17 foot data and then the subsequent angled setback that you get from the one foot increase for every, or sorry, one for every two feet back, the one foot increase in height. So this shows that that addition does in fact comply with that setback and the protruding eve that is shown over the setback. The code is allowed to stick, I believe, three feet over. So we have about 18 inches or so protrusion into that front setback with just the eve edge there, but the main roof structure sits below the height limitation and within the setback of the property. That was, that was all we really had to clarify. I think that we just wanted to make sure that we weren't intending on asking for any variances in terms of setbacks. Thank you. Is it board meeting first? Yeah. I do. I actually should call for one year your neighbors that got noticed that the story that you had made sort of a claim that they didn't know there was no neighborhood outreach. So I don't know, it could have gotten lost to the mail. But did you guys go through any neighborhood outreach to talk to any of your neighbors about what's going on? Yeah, so for a little context on a site construction has been underway for a couple of years now for the permits that were shown as open. So in terms of the explicit site outreach for this scope, we have not spoken to any of the neighbors other than at 515 to the south where we're also doing work but we have not spoken to the neighbor to the north who I believe is actually likely who you were speaking about who I actually think walked the site a few weekends back and did see the story poles potentially themselves but we know we have not reached out to the neighbor across the street nor to the north. And of course we're happy to happy to do so in any capacity you would recommend. So I can allow the items are going to be addressed if one of the designers that numbered lists. So the back of the property has bear creek which has a 50 foot or sorry 100 foot streamed setback or. Yeah, there's a setback either center line of stream or top of bank whichever is greater and that prohibits us from building across the back of the site. The other constraint on this site is the existing septic as well as expansion septic lines which are also pushed forward out of that stream setback so we're very very constrained and that being said, the addition at, you know, we're looking to expand the main residence with this as opposed to add additional structures. So looking at the footprint of the main residence towards the east, which is bear creek, there's a nice heritage oak with about a 48 to 52 inch trunk as as well as some 42 inch plus redwoods. So we've actually consulted with an arborist about our construction activity in order to make sure we're not disrupting the root structure of those trees there. So we're kind of, we, we did a buildable area diagram of the site and really looked at where we could expand and We're pretty much kind of limited from a site development parameter standpoint to where we're placing these additions If is it possible to bring the site plan up? And we can talk through some of the specific restraints. Um, and if you could just speak into the microphone, just a box on Zoom came. So, looking at specifically the expansion to the east, where we currently are showing, um, the added office space. And that's the project, project north is east right now. True north is to the left of the sheet. The addition over where Kago's mouse is hovering, that is constrained by the large oaks. You could see the stream set back, running approximately parallel to the stream. And that you could see the trunks there of those two large oak trees as well as some of the red woods a little to the left. So we can't push any further without potentially killing a heritage tree or multiple to the east. On the south, we are trying one to preserve existing landscape work, but we also have septic expansion lines with a 10 foot setback from those expansion lines to the south. Those are occurring directly south of that primary suite addition, which is the one page south on the west of of the residents that also is directly to the west up against the property line. To the north with a garage is expanding, that existing office, meeting house and accessory structure that is under a separate permit and currently under construction, that exists that driveway there is providing fire truck access so that the hose pool can reach around those structures. So we have that drive there, which we need to provide for fire truck access. There's also the easement that Kago mentioned that's running from the front of the property straight through to the back, which you could see dash right there. So that limits our expansion to the north as well. So we're really kind of kind of, you know, boxed in at the main site. And then we're also trying to be sensitive of just the existing language of the house and the massing and putting additions where, you know, visually it balances the existing home without, you know, changing the massing too much for the character of that structure. So put another way if there's going to be an addition to the main resonance, this is where it's going to go. Pretty much yeah, we were really in terms of where we started from a design standpoint. It was assessing the development parameters around the site and then looking where we could put those additional. In terms of where we started from a design standpoint, it was assessing the development parameters around the site and then looking where we could put those additional forms to house the additional space with a client. Understood? Yeah? Yeah. This project is only about the amount of pain on the room or fine lines that they have to not but I don't know room. I'm fine. I'm about to go on the festival. Did you want to say no, I was curious. I just heard it. Yeah, you said it. Great. Well, any questions you might have? What are you going to say? I wish I could answer that question, but that one's a little outside of my control. But we're happy to be up there. We've done so that once we have a clearer answer. There are no hands raised on one. I know it's tangential, but what have been your delays in construction? I wouldn't say there's any delays in construction but getting started is you know in a way dictated by this process I think you know our start time is really you know the other buildings that are ongoing there I would there's not delays in them but the main residents is kind of going to be critical path in terms of overall project duration, just giving the extent of work. So really, the sooner we get started, the sooner we finish on that. It's probably somewhere 24 and 30 month build on the main residents. High level. That's what people hear that. He's a better person to answer that question than I am. Is there anyone? This point I will close the college and we will move on to board this. Thank you. So it cuts. I feel satisfied that you've answered our questions and that the the height variance has been clarified with your drawing. So thank you for that. I did have a chance to tour the property over the weekend. Take a look at it and it should be a beautiful project. I did not a chance to tour the property over the weekend. Take a look at it and it could be a beautiful project that I didn't have any I did not get into the property When around the parameters and so forth, but I did not have any questions or concerns about it I have no issues with it although I do want to make sure that that's a board that we're applying an equitable hand as we look at projects. What? An equitable hand as we look at projects. This project has a visible addition on the road. It has a fence, a wall and a gate on a equestrian eas management at 30 feet. And it's pushing its main residence size and it's total allowable floor area on the project. Only things that are allowed to do by code, and I have no problem with the project. I just want to make sure that as a board we look at projects that hurt only fourth to us in the line of the code and residential design guidelines. I want a project like this comes in front of us that is pushing the limits and we look at it in that lens. I think every project is looked at separately, because each one is so different when different spots and depending on what the neighbors might have to say about a project comes into mind. So I think we do use the same judgment on all projects. I think so, absolute. you know, each one is individual and every project is very, very different. I mean, I'd be happy to make a motion to move the sign of formal Zinerbeam. Well, wait, wait, I'm not, I, I, I, I, I, I'm sorry, I keep skipping ahead of you. Yeah, it's, I remember going to this project years ago when Nikki had her spiritual house. So I'm familiar with this property. And the one thing that I would like that I'm not going to hold it up to formal review, if I do like to see a rendering of the house. I don't think there was any renderings done that and maybe you could do up a rendering and give it to your neighbors so that they can really see what you're doing and the impact of light from the windows and that sort of thing which formal will address but yeah that would be my one suggestion for us to really kind of see what it's going to look like. The story polls are helpful because it doesn't seem as much of an issue, but it'd be nice to see really what the whole outside with the wall and the gate is going to look like for the day, versus the end of it. So that'd be my only suggestion. So it sounds like with minimal comments that the to summarize, and it is required as part of formal design review to at least two colored elevations. So they'll provide renderings of the house and gate and to provide those to neighbors so they can provide any feedback that may be considered during formal designer view. I would make that motion. I'll second it. And I'm sorry if I noted, but to clarify, this would be formal designer view with staff. Give us a microphone. Vice-chair camera. Yes. Member Delgavio. Member Middleton. Yes. Member Sullivan. Yes. Congratulations. It was not that hard to get to. We'll invite the next applicant of Board Discussion Melanie. I think this is one on auto-friendly. Yes. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Let me just share my screen. All righty. Hello, I'm Melanie Olson, Associate Planner, and I'll be the project planner for this item at 128 out of Fred Lane for Conceptual Design Review with the Acer B. The project includes the demolition of an existing main residence, attached garage, and a detached arbor to construct a single story main residence, including a new attached garage, basement, pool, and other associated site improvements. There are no desk items for this project, and there has been no communication with the public prior to this public hearing regarding this project. The property is an R1 residential zoning district. It is a diamond shaped lot, which is about half a half an acre located on out of Fred Lane, off of Mermontes Road and Woodside Road, which is in a town designated scenic corridor. The property has an existing single-story main residence, an arbor structure and a shed in the rear setback on a relatively flat lot. There are three easements on the property all related to utilities. So for looking at this topographic survey here, here's one 10-foot public utilities easement. I'm pointing out with my mouse. And then on the other side of the property we have a small arbor easement which is to support the whole lines that are there and then there's also a larger public utilities easement that is for maintenance of the utilities on the property. The property also has five significant trees, none of which are proposed for removal. They are proposed to be protected in the tax tree protection report, but the project does propose to remove 15 smaller trees for this project. The existing main residence and arbor structure would be demolished while the existing shed in this rear setback would remain. The project proposes a new main residence with an attached garage, a basement with egress, egress light wells, a swimming pool, spa, and other site improvements. The proposed main residence and attached garage would be a single story structure that is approximately 3200 square feet and about 18 feet, 18 and a half feet tall. The project meets the required setbacks including the light wells and basement. The main residence size and total floor area for the property will need to be confirmed for compliance during formal designer view and that's typical when more details are provided. The main residence is proposed to have simple forms and roof lines that are understated and have similar forms as a barn without the decorative trim according to the applicant. So here are just the elevations for the project. Here's the rear elevation, right side and where you see the dips that would be underground for the light walls of the project. Here's the rear elevation right side and where you see the dips that would be underground for the light walls of the project. The proposed materials included dark midnight bronze standing seam metal roof, light brown got them integrals to stucco base color dark bronze aluminum doors windows by light stream and a brownish pewter gray garage door with for is aren't the horizontal boards. The applicant also included the materials proposed for the landscape features as shown. The ASB should consider the color of the cream colored stone veneer proposed for the entry feature walls that range between two and four feet. In the rendering, they seem to look more gray, but in the overall project proposal, it was shown to be this cream colored. And according to the residential design guidelines, the color may be presented too light. So that is something that the ASRB could discuss further. The applicant is here in person and available for questions. That concludes my presentation. Staff is happy to answer any questions. Thank you. If you just wanted to stay and see this president, if you guys aren't required. Just have fun. I'm not. Check it. Missing the traffic. Okay. Does the board have any question? We'll see a lighting plan eventually. Yes, formal designer view. And the limestone material that's used that actually even bleaches out over time with the sunshine. So whatever color it goes in, it's going to be lighter yet. potentially. That doesn't need any variances or could it go to staff? sunshine so whatever color it goes in it's going to be lighter yet. Potentially. Does it need any variances or could it go to staff? It doesn't require any variances. We would like to invite the applicant to give a presentation. Good afternoon. I'm Charlie Barnett. I am the architect for this project. Just a little background. This is a relatively small lot for wood side. It's the last lot in this cul-de-sac as you drive down Autofridden. And, wasn't we, took the project, the existing house seemed to be in the right place. There was really no other way to cite it in order to keep a big backyard which was important to the applicant. And so our idea was to kind of use simple barn-like forms and dark colors to kind of pick up the Oakwoodlands and we cited the house as close as we could do the front while still managing to get our parking requirement. And kept the profile low. So the house is actually only four feet higher than the original house. Audiford Lane is made up of about six houses and everything is one story. So the applicants wanted a larger house and we ended up using light wells and courtyards to kind of get the added program on the lower level. The color palette is dark brown, is melody kind of reviewed and I'm here to answer any questions. Any questions? Let's ask staff this first with the new ADU code. Are they allowed an ADU on the size? Yes, they are. I believe the applicant can spend exploring the possibility of doing an NADU that might come a little bit down the road. Comment that question. Please explore the NADU on this property as well. I know there's discussion. Well, I know of Charlie's designs. You guys may not know which department of arts have done some amazing houses on difficult lots and everyone seems to just love these designs and some of them. So you know I'm so much convinced this will be not much impact on the neighborhood one story I'm delighted to see you're bringing another project the Woodside. Oh thank you. At this point do we have anyone from the public that would like to ask a question? Okay. Come on up. My name is Randall Schwabacher. I am the next door neighbor. I live to the right. If you're looking from the street. We know the neighbors. We've seen this design. I think it's really beautiful. We're really totally in support of it. Very happy with it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. else from the public online or in the audience that would like to address the board? There are no raised hands online. And at this point, I think we will go by the property and I looked at the materials and so forth and I think the question came up about the light line so I think actually the house with this type of a dark overall theme and the heavy current landscaping of the actual contracts at the light line stone made really striking and look really good and complement the house actually. So I don't have to concern about that. Yeah, I think it's great. I understand that actually I end up talking to the owner. Yes, right in my site visit and I understand the reasons why they're pursuing it. Despite the outside of being a beautiful house. And all good reasons, but I make a motion to send us to staff reform. I feel the same way. I love the fact that it's one story that it's a beautifully designed house. I mean normally we don't like the cream colored stuck, stuck oh limestone. But it's not on a scenic highway and with a proper land saving and drive it's a small space so you're not getting this big mass white or light colored stone. So I'm fine of sending this for board approval to normal. Apple approval. So just to summarize, that the answer be commends the applicants for using materials and colors that are compatible with the neighborhood as well as providing a one-story design that complements the other houses in the neighborhood. And there's no further direction on design changes. There's a motion to for the formal designer view to staff. And there was a second to that. So if that captures everything, take a vote on that motion. Why is your camera? Yes. Member Delgavio. Member Middellman middleman, and member Sullivan. Yes. And just for everyone's knowledge for this project and the previous projects, especially since you're still here, I'm going to if you've ever been down Albion. There was an old historic lawn. You know, the one that it was a log cabin kind of. And these people they wanted to build a house and it was very different. It was totally broken. He managed to do that and it was very, very nice. And then there could be a couple smaller houses where it's just, you know, really nice. And so with that, the only thing I have to report is that you may be aware, but the town has selected a new town manager and that is on the agenda for tomorrow night's council medium, so it is out there in the public. Jason Ledbetter, his name he is the current city manager for the city of Y. Rika in Northern California. Yeah. I see you, Rika, California. Not you're Rika, but Y. Rika. Yeah, it's almost to the organ border. So it's far the north in U. Rika. And so yeah, that's exciting news and you know we look forward to working with him and there's on the council's agenda tomorrow night for the contract. Well with my adjourned motion to adjourn the meeting. Well that was pretty quick.