Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Improvements Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board supports Arbelato addition and existing retaining walls, asks for softening measures and full board review
Summary
The board reviewed a proposed 297‑square‑foot rear addition and multiple as‑built site improvements at 1030 Arbelato Road, endorsed the addition and as‑built front yard work, and asked the applicant for proposals to soften a prominent retaining wall visible from a private drive.
The Single Family Design Board reviewed a concept for a 297‑square‑foot rear addition and asked the applicants to return to the staff hearing officer with the full board for final action, while recommending ways to soften an as‑built retaining wall and supporting existing parking configuration on a private drive.
Don Sherry and Paul Saket presented the project and told the board that several site improvements were completed under earlier permits (BLD 2005‑295 and BLD 2008‑2819) that later expired. Mary Turnovskaya of Planning staff said staff wanted the board’s initial feedback because the earlier permits lapsed and the built walls and stairs now technically lie within a front setback under current zoning rules.
The project proposes a 297‑square‑foot addition and cantilevered deck at the rear of an existing 1,947‑square‑foot single‑unit residence with a 513‑square‑foot garage in the hillside design district. The proposed total of 2,771 square feet on a 21,205‑square‑foot lot equals about 59 percent of the guideline floor‑area ratio. The application requests a front‑setback modification to permit the expired front‑yard work and may require an additional modification for a parking area at the corner of Arbelato and the private drive.
“Staff is looking for comments regarding the aesthetic supportability of the front setback modification as well as the modification for that parking area on the corner,” planning technician Mary Turnovskaya told the board. Applicants explained that the front‑yard parking area allows deliveries and guest maneuvering on a narrow, dead‑end private drive and that removing it would reduce safety and access.
Board members said they were generally supportive. Several asked for design proposals to soften the tall rear retaining wall visible near the private drive; members suggested landscaping, partial relief in the wall or consistent detailing where future window openings are planned to reduce the wall’s visual impact. The board said it supported the as‑built front stairs and driveway changes given the site constraints and public‑safety concerns on a narrow access drive.
The board moved to continue the project to the staff hearing officer and requested that the matter return to the full board for any final action. The motion passed unanimously.
