Large Wellington Avenue rebuild draws split comments from Ross ADR over pool placement, FAR and color palette

The Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) group reviewed a proposed demolition and rebuild at 230 Wellington Avenue that would replace the existing residence with a two‑story house, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) under a garage, multiple decks, a pool and related site work. Staff told the ADR the application requires design review, a demolition permit, a hillside lot permit, a nonconformity permit, an ADU permit and variances including excess floor‑area and encroachments into yard setbacks.

Alex and the project team described changes made since the prior review: coordination with the fire department to extend the apron for truck access and to add on‑site parking, a smaller encroaching deck than previously shown, a single‑slope roof rather than the former dual slope, a trash enclosure off the road and retaining walls up to 6 feet. The project team said the pool equipment will be located beneath a deck and that bio‑retention on the site will manage increased impervious area.

The applicant or architect said the proposed site plan reduces the deck encroachment compared with the existing condition and that the sloping building pad yields slope measurements below a 30% threshold used in the Hillside Lot Ordinance calculation when measured over the proposed pad area. The planner noted a proposed total FAR number of 2,959 on the cover sheet; ADR members discussed differing FAR totals cited in the presentation and questioned the amount by which the project exceeds the Hillside Lot Ordinance limit.

Several ADR members expressed concern that the proposed home is substantially larger than the panel felt appropriate for the site. “I still believe the house is is still too large for the site,” one ADR member said. Others said the project’s two‑car garage and the tucked‑away ADU were positive public‑benefit features because they reduce on‑street parking pressure. Multiple members raised the pool’s proximity to the rear setback as a continuing concern despite the applicant’s explanation that moving the pool would create a much taller retaining wall.

The fire department’s review led to removal or thinning of trees in parts of the site to create defensible space; the landscape designer said most of the removals are on a downhill slope near a redwood grove on an adjacent property and that neighbors are distant from the removed trees. The project team proposed English laurel hedging and a new six‑foot wood fence around the pool.

The ADR gave the applicant several recommendations: prepare explicit FAR comparisons and written findings to support the requested variances for the Town Council, consider pulling the pool back from the setback or reducing its footprint, and choose a darker, more muted exterior color palette so the house will blend into the hillside. One ADR member advocated adding protective screens on bio‑retention outlet pipes to reduce long‑term clogging.

No formal roll‑call motion or recorded vote on approval was shown in the meeting transcript; ADR members expressed mixed views and several said they could support portions of the application while urging revisions or clearer findings for council review. The applicant was advised to bring the FAR calculations and a summary of changes to the Town Council packet.