The San Anselmo Planning Commission on Jan. 6 held a study session on a conceptual remodel of a 1923 home at 250 Redwood Road that would enlarge the upper floor, reconfigure interior spaces and add about 421 square feet of habitable area.

Planning Director Heidi Skopel described the lot as located in the single‑family conservation general plan category but zoned R‑1; the parcel is also in the town's Bald Hill area plan and the Wildland‑Urban Interface (WUI), which affects building materials and fire‑safety requirements. The existing house is roughly 914 square feet of floor area; staff reported the proposed addition would increase floor area by about 421 square feet and raise the overall building height by roughly three inches.

Attorney Len Rifkind, representing owners Jason Jaworski and Romy Hom, explained a partial right‑of‑way abandonment in 2012 left a small sliver of town‑controlled paper street across the property. Rifkind said a new town vacation and conveyance of that sliver to the owner would reduce the project's lot‑coverage nonconformity and thereby reduce the number or magnitude of variances required.

Why it matters: The proposal touches multiple regulatory issues—lot coverage, historical lot lines and right‑of‑way ownership, WUI‑compliant materials—and would require design review and variances. Commissioners cautioned that construction logistics, neighbor impacts and fire‑safety requirements will be important in formal review.

Key project details and entitlements
- Existing and proposed size: Staff reported an existing floor area of about 914 sq ft and a proposed increase of roughly 421 sq ft; the plan would reconfigure the upper floor to add bedrooms, bathrooms and a mudroom. The project would slightly increase measured lot coverage; staff said the site is currently nonconforming for lot coverage and that acquiring the adjacent abandoned right of way would reduce but not necessarily eliminate the nonconformity.

- Required permits and variances: Staff listed likely entitlements as design review, a variance to allow structural alterations to a legally nonconforming residence (because prior variances were issued), and a lot‑coverage variance. If more than 50% of building area is demolished, a demolition permit and full compliance with current development standards could be triggered; staff asked the applicant to document demolition calculations in a formal filing.

- Right‑of‑way vacation: Len Rifkind told the commission that a 2012 town council resolution partially vacated a paper street associated with the original subdivision, with most of the abandoned area conveyed to a different parcel. Rifkind said the remaining sliver on the 250 Redwood map “should have been part of the 250 Redwood deed description” and that a new vacation/conveyance would reduce variance requests. He also said town staff and council would need to approve any vacation and that it typically requires a staff report and council action.

Commission comments and public input
Commissioners asked whether the owners had consulted neighbors; owner Jason Jaworski said they had and described generally positive neighborhood contacts. Commissioners also pressed the applicant on parking: staff noted three spaces were required by code and only two are currently shown; a parking variance may be needed depending on final plans.

Several commissioners emphasized concerns about construction impacts on the narrow, steep street, the need for a construction management plan reviewed by Public Works, and compliance with WUI requirements. The applicant said they do not plan preemptive tree removals; two oak trees near the front were discussed but not slated for removal in the concept.

No decision was made. Staff told the commission the formal application will include the full submittal checklist items the commission requested: clear lot‑coverage calculations, demolition percentage, parking dimensions, neighborhood outreach documentation, and any right‑of‑way coordination information with Public Works and Town Council.

Ending
The commission provided generally supportive design comments about massing and materials but asked the applicant to return with a formal application that addresses lot‑coverage math, parking and the town vacation process before any approvals can be considered.