Zoning Design Review Board Meeting: March 8

The board members spent the opening of the meeting discussing start times and the fact that they will be meeting in person beginning in April. The last conversation for start times was 2004, so based on work schedules and consideration for staff, the board members decided that the start times will be 5:30 pm. Member Zagorzek also stressed not to wait another 17 years to discuss if anyone needed to adjust for the future.

A new application for a home at 6630 Jefferson St was submitted. Two board members and Planning Director Shelton had to recuse themselves, given their proximity to the property. This left the decision to three board members.

For those keeping up, this address had been initially approved for a lot split with two houses, two ADUs, and two pools. The applicant has returned because the layout had a driveway next to Hopper Creek. There was the concern and belief from the firm hired for the riparian work that the creekside was deteriorating and this would driveway would cause continued damage so, therefore, “inadvisable.” The new application had a home with an ADU, auxiliary building garage, and pool. The applicants are restoring the current home on the property, which dates back to 1864 – 1866, and using that vernacular for the remodel. They will be retaining the redwood siding where possible. Board member Cook discussed concern about the length of the north-facing building with Planner Levine, and they both agreed the architecture and fencing with landscaping would help alleviate this “look.” The project passed (and the fence is being completed as I type as I have a full view from my backyard).

Quick fact: an auxiliary structure does not count towards FAR. In this applicant’s case, the auxiliary is deemed auxiliary because it is open on at least two sides.

final informational report from the Planning Director was in response to a question from the previous meeting. The question was raised because a board member felt the 500 ft radius for conflict of interest was too wide for a small Town; he wanted to remain at the hearing to make a final decision. Short answer: NO. Director Shelton reminded the board members that this is State law.

Next meeting in person April 8. See the meeting agenda and watch the recording.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments