The Corte Madera Planning Commission continued a design‑review hearing Sept. 9 on a proposed demolition of a one‑story house at 400 Oakdale Avenue and construction of a new two‑story residence after extended discussion of view impacts and an unresolved property sale negotiation.

Planner Martha told the commission the project proposes a 2,971‑square‑foot two‑story home (including a 227‑square‑foot attached garage) on a 7,000‑square‑foot corner lot in the Chapman Park neighborhood, and that the application complies with the R‑1 district development standards staff reviewed. Martha said the applicant reduced the tallest ridge by 22 inches, reduced several lower roof lines by 6½ to 11 inches, inset the wall facing 404 Oakdale by about 12 inches and cut about 100 square feet from the upper level after earlier commission feedback. She also said the ADU shown in the plans is not subject to discretionary design review under state law and the town ADU ordinance and is shown for reference only.

The project drew sustained objections from the owners of 404 Oakdale Avenue, represented by attorney Dana Dean. Dean said the proposal “does not respect the neighbor’s view, sunlight, privacy and safety” and that the revised design “does not” cure the fundamental conflicts. Dean and the Gages detailed lengthy, months‑long negotiations over a roughly 500‑square‑foot strip of land (approximately 50 feet by 10 feet) that would, if sold, allow 400 Oakdale to qualify as a reverse corner lot and reduce its rear‑yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet. Martha explained that without a transfer the application assumes the house will remain in its current location and meet the existing setbacks.

The applicants and their designer described many revisions and said they had sought to address neighbor concerns; one applicant said the owners had offered to buy the strip for $1 while paying redesign and future taxes and splitting legal costs, an offer the applicants said the 404 owners declined. Dana Dean told the commission the 404 owners had offered amounts up to six figures during the negotiations but were willing to accept significant impacts on their backyard in order to resolve the dispute. Both parties attributed delays in reaching a deal to the complexity of the proposed reservation/easement terms and the need for recorded legal instruments.

Commissioners and staff pressed several technical points: the front property line is Oakdale because it is the shorter street frontage, the proposed house height at its tallest point is just over 27 feet (below the 30‑foot code maximum), the applicant has planted six of nine proposed street trees already (24‑inch box size) and the ADU is 725 square feet (included for reference). Staff emphasized that the principal findings the commission must weigh are design review findings 3 and 4 (effects on views/privacies and compatibility/scale with neighboring development) under Section 18.30.070 of the municipal code.

After extended discussion about whether the commission could require a lot transfer or a variance (staff said the town cannot require a sale and that variance findings would be difficult to make), commissioners did not vote on approval or denial. Instead the commission and both parties agreed to continue the item to a date certain so the applicants and the neighbors could resume direct negotiations with staff assistance. The commission set a target hearing date of Oct. 28, 2025, and asked the parties to notify staff by Oct. 14 if they reach a negotiated settlement that would allow staff to prepare a resolution and supporting findings for the commission.

No final design‑review decision was made; the item remains continued to the Oct. 28 Planning Commission meeting for either a vote or further action depending on whether the parties submit a negotiated settlement beforehand.