Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review study session for 31 Bigelow focuses on parking, redwood protection and historic evaluation
Summary
The commission held a study session on a proposed replacement single‑family home at 31 Bigelow (PL25‑0093). Staff and the applicant discussed massing, an alternate shifted plan, parking dimensions, and tree preservation; commissioners asked for arborist input, detailed parking dimensions and story poles or renderings before a return for full review.
The Planning Commission on Feb. 10 conducted a study session on a design‑review application for 31 Bigelow Avenue, where the applicants propose demolishing existing structures and building a new single‑family residence designed to fit the street’s scale while preserving mature redwoods on the West Blythedale frontage.
Planner Wayne Farrens summarized the proposal (project PL25‑0093), noting the site is an approximate 6,217‑square‑foot through lot in the RS‑6 zoning district with a moderate slope. Farrens said a historic‑resource evaluation found the existing house ineligible for listing but recommended an expanded review because documentation indicates the home may have been substantially rebuilt in 1937. He outlined two alternatives, including an option that shifts the building roughly five feet toward Bigelow Avenue to reduce impacts on the north neighbor.
Owners Tom and Tessa Pickard and architect Ken Linstead presented the replacement concept as two single‑story pavilion volumes linked by a courtyard and oriented to respect the redwood grove. Linstead described a modest massing with a maximum height of roughly 22.5 feet and said the proposed footprint would be smaller than the existing building overall while providing roughly 2,111 square feet of new living area.
Commissioners focused on several technical items the applicant should address before a formal review: clear, dimensioned parking plans to demonstrate the two required off‑street spaces (one may be compact per code), an arborist report and protections for redwood roots, and higher‑fidelity visualizations (story poles or camera renderings) so neighbors can assess impacts on light and views. Staff and the architect acknowledged parking diagrams in the study materials were conceptual and said full zoning compliance would be checked at the next review stage.
Public commenters praised the applicants’ outreach to immediate neighbors while asking for story poles and clarification on the project’s relationship to the redwood grove. One neighbor, whose living room faces the site, asked for story poles or 3‑D renderings to evaluate the massing and sightlines.
Commissioners generally endorsed the project’s design direction but asked the applicant to return with the following materials: precise parking dimensions and staging for how the three required vehicle spaces will be accommodated, an arborist plan and mitigation strategy for any work near the redwoods, story‑pole or rendering views showing the proposed massing from affected neighbors’ vantage points, and any revised siting alternatives that preserve a landscaped buffer where possible.
Because this was a study session, no formal vote was taken. Commissioners made clear they expect the applicant to address parking fit, tree protection, and visual impact before the application proceeds to a formal design‑review hearing.
