Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADR reviews exterior remodel at 9 Thomas Court; members oppose second-story deck
Summary
The ADR Committee reviewed a design- and demolition-permit recommendation for 9 Thomas Court. Members praised most elements but said a second-story deck should not be approved and asked the town attorney to confirm whether the deck counts as part of an ADU under California law.
The Architectural Design Review (ADR) Committee on May 21 considered a design-review and demolition-permit recommendation for 9 Thomas Court. Town staff (Alex) described an interior and exterior remodel that would replace existing siding with cedar shingles, add new insulated windows, a new entry roof and a new garage door; a separate application for an 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage was noted but identified as not subject to discretionary ADR review.
Architect Dave Jochim and owner Kristen Clemens said the proposed changes were straightforward and offered to take questions. ADR members praised the project’s overall character but raised design adjustments: Mark Fritz suggested tying the two front bays together visually (for example, with white trim) and recommended either raising or removing a modest stone base that could be obscured by landscaping. Fritz also questioned the trellis/garage treatment and the metal lattice beneath the ADU stairs as a material choice.
Chair Mark Krewchnick objected to the proposed second-story deck, saying it "feels like you're looming over someone" and stating he would not recommend approval of that deck while supporting the rest of the project. Architect Dave Jochim defended some choices, saying the metal lattice is a painted, durable material meant to mimic wood and that the client preferred continuous shingle wrapping over white trim.
The committee asked the town attorney to confirm whether an exterior, unenclosed deck that is only accessible from an ADU counts as part of an ADU under California law and therefore would be outside ADR’s discretionary review. Town staff said they would check with the town attorney and, if the deck is governed by ADU law, would ask applicants to remove it from ADR review.
The applicant was invited to revise details based on ADR feedback; the town’s process is for ADR to forward a recommendation to the town council after the design-review discussion.
