Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments Pools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ross ADR debates pool and landscape-structure setbacks; staff may propose 10‑foot exception with screening
Summary
The ADR discussed zoning text amendments to allow objective exceptions for pools and landscape features. Members debated a prospective 10‑foot setback plus mandatory screening, cubic‑yard/design‑review triggers, and special rules for hillside or narrow lots, then asked staff to draft language for a ministerial process.
The Town of Ross Advisory Design Review committee spent the latter portion of its Nov. 18 meeting discussing proposed zoning-text amendments to address setbacks for pools and other landscape features.
Staff presented an example from Woodside and said the goal would be to convert some variance requests into a predictable exception or administrative, ministerial process. Staff framed two options: codify a new setback standard in the zoning districts or create an exception that would be processed administratively but still require objective criteria and design review triggers for larger projects.
Committee members debated an appropriate default setback for pools and patios, with repeated reference to 10 or 15 feet. One member summarized the group’s leaning: "So let's weigh it at 10 feet," noting that a 10‑foot rule paired with objective screening criteria could reduce the number of variance requests. Members urged that any exception include objective screening or planting expectations (examples discussed included 3–5 feet of planting or a minimum planting depth) so neighbors would not face bare hardscape right up against a property line.
The ADR also discussed technical triggers for when full design review should still apply — suggestions included retaining walls over 4 feet, pools requiring more than 50 cubic yards of grading, or pools with surface area above a threshold — so that large or hillside projects would still receive full committee review. Several members proposed treating side and rear setbacks uniformly to reduce complexity for applicants and staff. The committee also discussed hillside lots and narrow historical lots (e.g., Balinas/Bolinas), noting narrow lots may still need discretionary review when objective exceptions are impractical.
Outcome: Staff committed to draft code language that would allow a ministerial/administrative exception for pools and certain landscape structures with objective criteria (proposed 10‑foot setback plus screening and clear design‑review triggers), and to return the proposal to ADR for refinement. Committee members signaled support for a single, predictable standard to reduce variance requests but asked staff to retain a path for discretionary review where necessary.
No ordinance adoption or vote took place at the Nov. 18 meeting.
