Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee upholds Planning Commission, denies variance appeal for 1302 Douglas/1716 Fremont
Summary
The committee denied an appeal seeking a floor‑area‑ratio variance and site plan approval for an eight‑unit building at 1302 Douglas/1716 Fremont, upholding the Planning Commission’s finding that applicants did not demonstrate practical difficulty; final committee vote recorded 3 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions.
The Business, Housing and Zoning Committee on March 20 denied an appeal of a Planning Commission decision that had rejected a requested increase in floor‑area ratio (FAR) and had denied site plan review for a proposed 2.5‑story, eight‑unit building at 1302 Douglas Avenue and 1716 Fremont Avenue.
Applicant representatives said the replacement building would be contextual with nearby massing and that the owners have occupied the properties for decades. City staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the FAR variance, concluding the applicant had not met the ordinance’s three findings for variances, including a showing of a practical difficulty unique to the property. Planning staff noted that the site’s 10‑foot grade change did not justify the requested FAR increase and that surrounding properties’ FARs could not be used to establish practical difficulty for the applicant’s lot.
Neighbor testimony focused on scale, sunlight loss, and lack of neighborhood notice; several neighbors who live directly adjacent or across the street said the proposed building would be too large for the block and would set an undesirable precedent. The Lowry Hill neighborhood association provided a letter of support but several individual neighbors said they were not notified of the association meeting that produced that letter.
Council Member Allison moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision; the committee’s roll call recorded three ayes (Chowdhury, Ellison, Osmond), one nay (Rainville) and two abstentions (Cashman and Jenkins). The committee’s decision leaves the Planning Commission denial in place.
