Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infill Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board postpones Savoy Street infill house for revisions to porch, setback and driveway
Summary
The board postponed review of a proposed single-family infill house at 3305 Savoy Street to allow revised drawings addressing front-setback alignment, porch depth (increase to 8 feet), driveway relocation to the side or rear, and window and gable shape changes; the board requested a 30‑day resubmittal and staff follow-up.
The Downtown Design Review Board on Sept. 17 postponed consideration of a proposed single‑family infill house at 3305 Savoy Street (case 8A25IH) after lengthy discussion about its compatibility with the infill housing design guidelines.
Planning staff described the project and recommended approval pending several conditions: revise parking to avoid front yard parking, provide a walkway from porch to street, retain a tree in the rear yard if possible, add a window on the left elevation, and provide revised elevation drawings. Applicant Tony Nelson said the house is for a homeowner and explained the proposed wider footprint was chosen to accommodate multiple family members; he later provided an alternate narrower plan that respondents said was closer to guideline intent.
Board members repeatedly raised concerns that the submitted plan had a front-facing garage and a shallow porch that did not engage the street; several members recommended narrowing the house and moving the driveway to the side to place parking behind the house. Melinda Woolard (planning staff) advised that staff could work with the applicant to clarify conditions and review revised drawings outside a formal meeting. The board voted to postpone the case with a 30‑day turnaround to allow the applicant to submit revised drawings addressing porch depth, setbacks, driveway location, and facade details.
The postponement is intended to help the applicant provide a package that better aligns with the board’s guidelines and to reduce the need for multiple subsequent reviews.
