Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the New Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves new unit at 815 East Alameda but denies proposed 6-foot street wall and metal planter
Summary
The Historic District Review Board approved construction of a new single-story residence (Unit 8) at 815 East Alameda but declined the applicant's request for a 6-foot yard wall along the sidewalk and a weathered-steel planter that would be publicly visible, asking the applicant to return with compliant designs.
The Historic District Review Board approved a new single-story residence (phase 3, Unit 8) at 815 East Alameda but denied the applicant—s requested 6-foot-high yard wall at the sidewalk and a public-facing 3-foot weathered-steel planter.
Senior Planner McCully described the phased Sangria compound and said phases 1 and 2 were previously approved and built; the current request is for phase 3, a 2,204-square-foot, single-story residence at a maximum height of 14 feet, 5 inches, with a portn and exterior fireplace. Staff recommended approval of the building but recommended denial of an exception to exceed the maximum yard-wall height (the code sets an average and 4—9/2-foot maximum for the streetscape) and recommended denial of the proposed publicly visible metal planter because the standards require materials that simulate adobe rather than metal.
Applicant representative Spline Smith said the parcel faces fast-moving traffic on Alameda and argued a taller wall would mitigate noise and improve safety for cars and guests using the courtyard parking; the applicant said the requested wall raised the average street-wall height by only a fraction and that the higher wall was needed given the tight setback and the proximity of the building to the sidewalk.
After public comment and questions, the board voted to approve the house design but to deny the proposed 6-foot-high yard wall and the weathered-steel planter; the board—s direction left open that the applicant could return with a compliant wall design built wholly on private property (within the existing code limit) or consider alternative materials such as stucco or a coyote fence for the planter guard.
Why it matters: The action allows the owner to proceed with construction of Unit 8 while preserving the board—s role in limiting yard-wall heights and publicly visible non-adobe materials on the Alameda streetscape. Staff and the applicant will coordinate design revisions for the wall and planter to meet the code and board guidance.
The board recorded the motion and will post findings; staff reminded the applicant that walls must be located on private property and that city planning staff will have to approve the site plan and rights-of-way details.
