Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 615 Bath Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board generally supports two‑story proposal at 615 Bath Street but seeks solutions to front‑porch massing and column spans
Summary
The Single Family Design Board gave conceptual feedback on a two‑story home and ADU at 615 Bath Street, expressing general support but asking for revisions to reduce apparent massing at the street, structural details for long column spans, a neighborhood context study, and an eventual arborist report.
The Single Family Design Board on Sept. 8 provided detailed design comments but did not approve a proposed two‑story house with an ADU at 615 Bath Street. Staff said the lot is constrained (2,999 square feet) and the project requests an open‑yard modification; staff supported the modification as the site constraints limit on‑grade open yard while the design provides two upper‑story decks totaling 542 square feet.
Project materials illustrate a 2,122‑square‑foot building with a first‑floor garage (629 sq ft) and storage (440 sq ft), and a second‑floor primary residence (704 sq ft) plus a 349‑square‑foot ADU. Because Mission Creek and flood elevations place the finished floor above the base flood elevation, habitable spaces are on the second story and the first floor is limited to garage and storage.
Board members generally supported the concept and the need for housing on a small lot but raised multiple design concerns. Several members said the front‑facing, full‑depth gabled roof and stacked wide‑span columns create a heavy, looming appearance from Bath Street; they asked the applicant to explore options such as reducing upper‑level plate height, pulling the gable back and using a lighter porch covering (for example, an exposed rafter or trellis treatment), revising the wing walls, and providing a structural solution for the 21‑foot clear spans consistent with craftsman proportions. Members also requested neighborhood context photos and examples of two‑story massing on adjacent streets, and suggested the applicant obtain an arborist report about a large specimen tree on an adjacent property.
After discussion the board voted to continue the item to the full board (date‑certain Sept. 22) and provided a list of requested materials and design approaches the applicant should return with.
