Feedback from BDS Planning Committee
Marguerite Feuersanger called this morning. She presented my preliminary design plan to the Thursday morning planning group. Here’s the feedback:
- Building design didn’t present any big red flags. We can present the split-roof design, though there is no guarantee we won’t get a planner that requires a standard gable-roof design. She suggests that we apply with what we WANT, and make adjustments as necessary.
- The main concern among group members was the relationship of the secondary building to the small size of the primary residence. It would be “better” if the ADU were smaller.
- One suggestion was to expand the size of the main house to decrease the amount of adjustment needed. We discussed creating additional living space by converting the garage.
- The placement of the ADU may be problematic. One solution would be to push it closer to the main house.
- She said to make sure we were happy with whatever design we submitted - we’re effectively stuck with whatever we propose. This differs somewhat from what Patrick reported previously.
- The proposal was impressive.
At the end of the day, Marguerite said it’s a coin toss - we could get a planner who signs off on it or we could get a planner who objects to the size/scale relationship. It’s a very subjective decision. Neighbor input could play heavily into this decision.
I asked Marguerite about the review process and how flexible the planners are. For example, can we make “compromises” as part of the process in order to get approval? She says that yes, that’s part of it. We might, for instance, offer to move the ADU further from the property line to mitigate privacy issues. And, there’s always the appeal process as a last resort (though this is NOT something I’m eager to embark on).
From here, I see our next steps being:
- Contacting neighbors about the process. If possible, get their support. Possibly in writing.
- Developing elevations to submit to the city of Land Use Review.