Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves project‑design for 224 Lyola Drive with conditions after owner recounts unpermitted work and mold remediation
Summary
The Single Family Design Board granted project‑design approval for a two‑story addition at 224 Lyola Drive, imposing conditions on materials, balcony and railing details, lighting, and alignment of window head heights. The owner described extensive mold remediation and said she has filed suit against prior designers and contractors.
The Single Family Design Board on March 23 approved project‑design for a two‑story addition at 224 Lyola Drive, voting unanimously to continue the project to final with conditions on materials, balcony detailing and exterior lighting.
The project owner, Katherine Beckley, told the board she bought the house from an estate in March 2023 and later discovered preexisting violations and significant mold. "I am neurodivergent on the autism spectrum," Beckley said during her presentation, explaining why she focused on factual clarity; she described hiring hazmat contractors and paying roughly $23,000 for high‑level mold abatement. Attorney John Tine and designer Shave O'Reilly represented the applicant at the hearing.
Designer Shave O'Reilly outlined changes made since the last review, saying the team "removed the chimney" and reduced a large overhanging enclosed deck in favor of a smaller Juliet balcony to reduce massing facing neighbors. He also told the board the revised design keeps the project under the board's 85 percent floor‑area guideline and retains an existing garage and shed where appropriate, citing a recent survey that confirmed the shed sits inside the property line.
Board members asked detailed questions about elevations, material palettes, night‑sky‑compliant lighting and the planned balcony framing. Several members said the revised design addresses earlier concerns. At the close of discussion, a motion carried to grant project‑design approval with conditions requiring the applicant to provide a materials board, detailed balcony and railing drawings, revised elevations showing as‑built conditions where applicable, window head alignment, and dark‑sky‑compliant exterior lighting for final review.
Chair Sherry read the board findings supporting the motion, including that the development is compatible with the neighborhood in size, bulk and scale and that proposed materials will preserve scenic hillside character. Staff noted a 10‑calendar‑day appeal period applies to the decision; no appeals were filed at the meeting's close.
The board’s conditions are intended to ensure clarify of details at final submittal; the applicant may return at final with revisions requested by the board.
