Planning commission continues Chief Kelly Drive house after questions on bluff setback, drainage and window proportions

The Nevada City Planning Commission on a voice vote continued consideration of a proposed new house at 650 Chief Kelly Drive after commissioners raised unresolved questions about bluff setbacks, stormwater drainage and the proportions of new gable windows.

Staff presented the architectural review application for the 0.55‑acre lot as a proposed 2,790‑square‑foot, one‑and‑a‑half‑story residence with a two‑car garage and carport, noting that lot geometry forces the garage to face the street. Jessica, the city planner leading the item, said the application meets zoning bulk standards but that detailed drainage plans will be reviewed by the public works director before final permits. “Brian will review those drainage improvement plans,” she said, and staff recommended conditional approval subject to findings and conditions.

Owner and architect Jimmy Turner described the design choices and the site constraints that led to the garage location, saying the property’s dog‑leg geometry, a steep slope and required setbacks limited options: “I tried to shift it… but with the setbacks it gets really narrow and you end up pushing it too far into your backyard,” he told the commission.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant to clarify whether a 55‑foot bluff buffer identified in zoning documents applies to this lot. One commissioner said the subdivision map and the ordinance appear to reference different setback measures and asked staff to return with documentation showing which applies. Staff agreed to research the mapping discrepancy and any need for a variance before the item returns.

Members also flagged an architectural concern: several commissioners said the proposed narrow vertical windows on the gable ends made the house read as more contemporary than the surrounding Nevada City style. “Those very narrow windows… they're really powerful,” one commissioner said, urging the applicant to test slightly wider proportions to better match neighborhood scale.

The commission voted to continue the item to the December meeting so the applicant and staff can refine window proportions, resolve the bluff‑setback mapping and bring more detailed drainage engineering and civil‑plan clarifications back to the commission. The continuation was ordered by motion and voice vote; no final decision was made on the project.