[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6502188,"mediaKeyId","5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332","parentId",5555782,"title","ADR debates staff-written findings, conceptual reviews and objective design standards","audioSeconds",940,"startMs",3150000,"endMs",4090000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332&start=3150&end=4090","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332/thumbnail_3150000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6502188/Ross/Marin-County/California/ADR-debates-staff-written-findings-conceptual-reviews-and-objective-design-standards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6502188-235e5d9b20d2870a2140f3249b3cc545/orig.mp4?Expires=1775664741&Signature=LesDtIh97DJEHsQpaI-KTaRPl33pcoqJK8Cx57O~soaiQpA10pDGg47MdL-Vxbl3YbrXGyTnMkYjscbKFCMSM42sESI1TyjMccROXqQX3WsJSCPgF33W8VrtVg3RWBaSwGujUYgpeCeLKe-XKoTepzcuU4WkmoEX0UNp~g3yRAFlLxvr7~DhJHbV~FvtVcYeZXEjTv7-vVqVFq7y05DDGPwZMwVxoelJ6AJe0AJ0IN4j6ockt8ojm8DojPK3J-~7YCLxQpXAPWfkJnfQp6f-pNvNkeLtMquztUY-ujkqIWgdV0ytm6GVb91LFuADJ09HHGuusKNxRf6j2TZhQ7ulEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Ross","date","2025-08-07T21:26:17Z","article","After project discussions, ADR members questioned whether staff should prepare findings and recommendations for variance requests and for what level of review the ADR should expect staff guidance.

An ADR member asked whether code or practice prevented staff from preparing findings; staff responded that current practice is to take ADR input to council and that staff does not routinely prepare variance findings for ADR. \"My understanding is that, we ask ADR and the council to consider the application. We don't make a recommendation,\" a planning staff member said. ADR members asked staff to put an item on a future agenda to consider whether staff should regularly prepare findings or a recommended decision for ADR and council. Several members said having staff produce objective, preparatory findings could streamline council review and reduce surprises for applicants.

Members also discussed the role of conceptual design review versus formal ADR review. Staff said conceptual reviews are usually less costly (notice fee only) and can help applicants avoid expensive rework by testing design direction early. ADR members generally favored clearer pathways for applicants—conceptual sketch review when projects are early, and formal review when applicants are seeking an ADR recommendation to council.

On state-driven changes, staff told ADR that the town’s housing-element action plan includes work to \"streamline design review and come up with objective standards,\" and that the town expects to adopt objective standards by late 2026. Members said objective standards should be precise enough to guide decisions without reverting to subjective, process-heavy review that can delay housing projects.

Ending: ADR agreed to add a future agenda item (August meeting) to discuss whether staff should prepare findings/recommendations and to refine the use of conceptual review. The transcript records no formal policy change; the item was scheduled for future consideration by ADR and staff.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Advisory Design Review Group Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Members of the Ross Architectural Design Review group discussed whether staff should prepare findings or recommendations on variance requests, and debated clearer processes for conceptual vs. formal reviews. Staff said objective design standards driven by state housing law are expected by the end of 2026.","taxTitle","Ross, Marin County, California","taxId",79356,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6502193,"Homeowner seeks variance for attached garage at 36 Allen; neighbors raise setback and curb-cut concerns",1496,1667000,3163000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332&start=1667&end=3163","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332/thumbnail_1667000.jpg","/articles/6502193/Ross/Marin-County/California/Homeowner-seeks-variance-for-attached-garage-at-36-Allen-neighbors-raise-setback-and-curb-cut-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6502193-f3a2eef43a8acb600f70b96f1634e052/orig.mp4?Expires=1775664741&Signature=J3CHBvwcEtTPwldTm~S2PHlkfyrJbVDijLn9xw~c28OHtAuIi~TVgR0WZYNs9L2WE9MG2JYk-w278SR4DhTYOgch0w9oEfCtMn7gdr8RQTaunzkBMYLqky7nCpS5SPgBYbhw6wZ8tqDPhKFTCNOkOUydnskSqNGxgwVE9zbyvxcXMmbKFAdVuC43kWbbBu1dXyuMLc2tfociBiXzXTyEycavtWNY26kNwF4MQqvLnEF-s-E3OjzrANgd3EbRnyvLyRMxTSCxCgYrjj-vw7Q3FuO9RlqFxLNEyveXOpyU8EJn1aYnY~o7UMJDCuIYMv3yhUAmkIQkrOhOTnPBeWe-3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The applicant for 36 Allen Avenue asked the Architectural Design Review group to recommend to town council approval of design review and a variance so the property owner can convert an existing detached garage into an ADU and construct a new 624-square-foot attached two-car garage within the front and side yard setbacks.

Staff explained the variance request arises because the proposal would exceed the town’s allowable floor area by 164 square feet after the applicant shifts the existing detached-garage area into an ADU. Staff and the applicant noted the applicant could transfer the roughly 460 square feet of converted garage area to the main house, but the project still requests a 164-square-foot increase above what would be allowed.

Homeowner John Moe told ADR he and his team plan to remove about 1,200 square feet of hard paving, install permeable paving and reduce vegetation. \"We wanna park our cars in the garage,\" Moe said, adding he had sought neighbor input and would mitigate visual impacts with landscaping. Two nearby residents, including Lindsay Perlov of 37 Allen and a Willow Street neighbor, spoke at ADR raising concerns about a new double-wide curb cut, driveway configuration, garage height and visual impacts.

Several ADR members said the proposed location and size of the garage requires findings they could not make. \"I don't support this project. I don't see that there are findings for encroaching so far into the setbacks and adding the square footage,\" one member said. Multiple members agreed there was \"no hardship\" demonstrated that would meet variance standards and warned of precedent for future encroachments. A few members said the garage location would be less privacy-invasive than placing an ADU at the front setback, but still opposed granting the setback and FAR variances as proposed.

Staff clarified regulatory points during the item: the town’s ADU guidance allows a 4-foot front-yard setback in many cases, and the ADR/staff process does not routinely present formal findings for variances to ADR; ADR members suggested adding an agenda item to consider whether staff should prepare findings or recommendations going forward. No formal ADR vote to approve the 36 Allen variances appears in the transcript; the discussion ended with multiple ADR members saying they would not support granting the setback and FAR variances as presented.

Ending: The homeowner may bring the application to town council despite ADR concerns; the transcript records neighbors’ objections and multiple ADR members saying they could not find the necessary hardship to support the requested variances.","The owner of 36 Allen requested ADR recommend a design-review and FAR variance to convert a rear garage to an ADU and build a new 624-square-foot attached two-car garage that encroaches into front and side setbacks. ADR members and neighbors questioned the hardship, setbacks and the precedent such a variance could set.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6502198,"ADR splits over floor-area variance for 230 Wellington; members favor garage but not added house square footage",1447,229000,1676000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332&start=229&end=1676","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5555782-ca279e25525a99066f99a61d80fe5332/thumbnail_229000.jpg","/articles/6502198/Ross/Marin-County/California/ADR-splits-over-floor-area-variance-for-230-Wellington-members-favor-garage-but-not-added-house-square-footage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6502198-bdf384fc1cb4550331304d8e652f8fae/orig.mp4?Expires=1775664741&Signature=ALoPyLgpJJb4Zpwt4GsJ225ePSU4YpZfYspCAgsUT6rtLK5ytc-lHQ062cbKow~O0k~G7BYJU8I6Y7VgikVWRvJK~KomApTZD~Av~NshI7ywpbUoBRJrmnrfEEZS3tDJX3BJXNBi0wR~azUWNbPoXbyRHOPu~CLOA~s0KbOrfwcafK3mGkH04IkinfKDqtQdpohSeLrcwDRNn3IkuGWnGc2FVzELT5EsonI0ndPQMO4aixBMNf0ikyUtr~crbgcQuUG6hQLZj2NnZq9ZWQNM~zhs0h5CubSRzz6tnhDqS6IVlj-Gr0CS0bH2OXcuQmogAuKXcLqPOOohrGEfjqdeGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Good evening, ADR members. The applicant for 230 Wellington asked the Architectural Design Review (ADR) group for a recommendation to the town council on a package of entitlements including design review, demolition and nonconformity permits, a hillside-lot permit, an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) permit and a variance to exceed the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR).

The project team told ADR the proposal would add 692 square feet of floor area: 521 square feet for a new two-car garage and 171 square feet to the main house, increasing total area from 2,267 to 2,959 square feet. The applicant said the lot’s topography—about 10% of the parcel exceeds a 30% slope—pushes the property into the town’s hillside-lot rules and therefore reduces the allowable FAR. The applicant also described revisions made after earlier reviews: shortening a proposed pool from 38 to 34 feet and moving it to increase setbacks (side yard increased from 9 feet 1 inch to 12 feet; rear setback from 13 feet 1 inch to 17 feet 2 inches).

Why it matters: ADR members said the principal question is whether the application meets the town’s variance findings. Multiple members supported additional enclosed parking to get cars off the street, citing neighborhood parking and emergency-access concerns. Several members said the garage-related increase was defensible but that they could not find an extraordinary circumstance that would support adding hundreds of square feet to the main house.

\"I can see going above and beyond the existing FAR by 298 square feet to give you a second covered parking space,\" said Mark, an ADR member, explaining that covered parking benefits the neighborhood. Brooks, another ADR member, said he \"can't make the findings for the additional square footage of the house\" and called a claim of a hillside hardship insufficient on its own. Steven and other members likewise said they were comfortable recommending extra garage area for parking but did not find reasons to support the house increase.

The applicant emphasized fire-safety and neighborhood character as reasons for the garage and modest house expansion; a design representative said the new construction would reduce vegetation and remove a century-old house that the applicant described as a fire hazard. Staff confirmed the bulk of ADR's focus that evening was the FAR variance; previous ADR sessions had given majority support for many entitlements, and earlier the ADR majority supported the pool variance.

No formal vote or final recommendation by ADR was recorded in the transcript. Several members suggested the council is more likely to approve extra FAR for covered parking than for additional house area; others warned that a grant now could set precedent for future variances. The record shows the ADR discussion closed without a single, definitive recommendation recorded in the transcript and the item was set to move to town council with ADR commentary.

Ending: The applicant may choose to take the item to town council; ADR members signaled they were likely to support additional enclosed parking while many would oppose granting extra square footage to the main house without clearer hardship findings.","At a Ross ADR meeting, the applicant for 230 Wellington sought multiple permits and a variance to increase floor area by 692 square feet. ADR members largely supported added garage space for off-street parking but many said they could not find the required hardship to approve extra square footage for the main house.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

ADR debates staff-written findings, conceptual reviews and objective design standards

Homeowner seeks variance for attached garage at 36 Allen; neighbors raise setback and curb-cut concerns

ADR splits over floor-area variance for 230 Wellington; members favor garage but not added house square footage