Commissioners review addition at 3355 Carlisle Terrace; suggest simpler roof, sections and materials details

The Lafayette Design Review Commission provided feedback on a proposed addition and partial second‑story remodel at 3355 Carlisle Terrace during a study session. Staff said the project proposes a 992‑square‑foot first‑floor addition and a 1,118‑square‑foot second‑floor addition that would raise the home’s total to about 4,210 square feet and a ridge height of 28 feet 6 inches; the property is about 0.28 acres in an R‑20 zone.

Madison Leonard presented the item and said the existing home totals about 2,080 square feet and currently is nonconforming to front and side setbacks; staff recommended the owner consider merging the adjacent narrow parcel by lot‑line revision to meet the west side setback. Leonard said the study session was noticed and posted and that staff received no public comments. “Does the project substantially comply with the residential design guidelines…?” she asked commissioners as a framing question for feedback.

Applicant Bill Whiteman described the work as a straightforward remodel that pushes the first‑floor addition to the rear and concentrates a partial second story on the west side, which the applicant said is lower relative to the uphill slope and will be partly screened by topography. Whiteman said he plans to preserve a large backyard silver maple and replace some impermeable patio with permeable surfacing; he also noted the city has code provisions (as cited in the meeting) that can treat contiguous parcels as merged under certain circumstances and that he would prefer to avoid the time and expense of a formal lot merger if possible.

Commissioners raised design and procedural concerns. Multiple commissioners recommended replacing the proposed shed roof and high roof pitch with a more conventional gable form to fit neighborhood character and reduce perceived bulk; one commissioner called the shed roof “out of character” and suggested eliminating upper windows that accentuate the roof massing. Commissioners requested a sectional drawing that shows house elevations relative to neighboring houses, clearer material specifications (including siding and exterior lighting), and more context photos or diagrammatic sections showing distances to adjacent homes.

On setbacks and approvals, commissioners and staff discussed two paths: a lot‑line adjustment that would reconfigure parcel boundaries to achieve compliant setbacks, or a variance application to permit the proposed additions on the existing parcel. The applicant said he would apply for the variance and, if necessary, pursue a lot‑line adjustment; one commissioner noted a lot‑line adjustment could be faster in practice but that both are feasible approaches.

Commissioners also recommended that the applicant document tree preservation measures for the silver maple the applicant estimated to be roughly 75 years old and show how the proposed work will avoid impacts to critical roots. Staff reiterated that the DRC’s role at this meeting is advisory and that the applicant should return with revised permit drawings, sections showing adjacent house elevations, material samples and lighting plans.

No formal motion or vote was taken; the commission provided design direction and asked the applicant to return with the requested drawings and clarifications.