Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Policy Pools Far topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ross ADR discusses changing pool setbacks and basement/FAR rules amid growing variance requests
Summary
Staff presented research on regional pool setbacks and ADR members discussed whether Ross should adopt objective standards for pools and allow basement square footage to be treated differently in FAR calculations; members were split and staff will return with comparative data.
At the April 15 meeting the Ross Planning staff briefed the Advisory Design Review on a recurring pattern of variance requests for residential pools on constrained lots and solicited ADR input on whether the town should adopt clearer, more objective rules.
Staff summarized neighboring jurisdictions’ approaches: Tiburon allows pools in rear setbacks and may require only minor design review for in-ground pools; Larkspur commonly allows 5-foot side or rear setbacks; San Anselmo and Corte Madera have their own setback minima and design-review thresholds; Belvedere allows rear-yard pools provided they are at least three feet from property lines. Staff said the intent of the briefing was not to propose a specific change but to ask whether ADR wanted staff to compile a more comprehensive record showing past variances and what objective standards the ADR might recommend to the Town Council.
ADR members voiced sharply different views. Some members said the existing pattern of precedent makes setbacks effectively meaningless and urged development of objective, predictable standards (for example, a fixed minimum setback for pools or a streamlined “minor exception” for landscape features under a specific threshold). Others cautioned such a change would encourage placing pool and congregation spaces closer to neighbors and could increase noise and perceived loss of separation for longtime residents; several members said a policy change could invite legal challenges if it appeared to reduce the protection of adjacent property owners.
Staff also raised a separate but related idea: exempting basements from FAR calculations if they meet strict definitions (for example, fully within the building footprint, limited daylighting and head-height constraints). Proponents said exempting basement area could allow homeowners to gain livable space while preserving strict above-ground FAR and setbacks; opponents warned exempting basements could unlock above-ground additions and accelerate neighborhood intensification, and noted floodplain and hillside constraints would limit where basements could practically be added.
By the end of the discussion ADR members asked staff to return with a more detailed compilation of past pool variances, the dimensions of approved projects in town, comparative setback rules from neighboring jurisdictions, and data on FAR and basement exceptions in peer jurisdictions. Staff said it will bring that research back to a future ADR meeting for further guidance before any formal code amendments are recommended to the Town Council.
