Architectural board supports open-yard, parking modifications and sends 306 Ladera concept to staff hearing officer

The Architectural Board of Review on March 17 gave aesthetic support to parking and open-yard modifications requested for a proposed six-unit project at 306 Ladera Street and continued the application to the staff hearing officer for additional site-detail coordination.

Applicant representative Liz Hughes, presenting for architect Tom Wachsner and owner David Said, described a plan that retains an existing 854-square-foot residence at the front of the lot and builds three new two-story structures behind it for a total of six units under the city's Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) incentive program. The project would demolish an existing garage and shed, create a new driveway and parking court, add five parking spaces (including three garage spaces), convert one car parking stall to bike parking, and provide a 870-square-foot central common open yard.

Hughes said the design requests an open-yard modification because some landscaped and courtyard areas are necessary for circulation and to retain the front building, and the project cannot provide the standard private open-yard calculation under current rules. She described the proposed trash enclosure as enclosed with doors and sited near the side pathway and bike parking.

During the discussion board members agreed the basic massing and the idea of smaller, multiple buildings fit the neighborhood and that the proposed open yard and parking modification could be appropriate from an aesthetic perspective. Several members urged the team to study alternate layouts that would place the pedestrian pathway on the south side of the site rather than across the proposed front courtyard, noting that circulation through a required common open yard can make that space ineligible under current rules and could create conflicts between pedestrians and service functions. Board members also asked the applicant to revisit the trash-enclosure location and ensure adequate enclosure and pickup logistics; to refine bike parking racks and access; to develop a more complete landscape plan and to evaluate privacy impacts from second-floor windows on adjacent properties.

The board's motion continued the item indefinitely to the staff hearing officer with stated comments: support for the open-yard and parking modifications from an aesthetic perspective; study whether the front building could be flipped to improve trash and bike access; explore adding a south-side pedestrian path as an alternative; provide a more comprehensive landscape plan; and confirm privacy and window-adjacency details. The motion carried on a unanimous vote of the members present (Chair Anderson: yes; Vice chair Whalen: yes; Board member Anderson: yes; Board member Black: yes; Board member Noon: yes; Board member 6: yes; Board member Sovereign: yes).

The application will next be handled by the staff hearing officer for the requested modifications and detailed site review; no final appealable decision was taken by the board at the March 17 hearing.