Board grants project‑design approval for 523 W. Gutierrez 9‑unit AUD building with privacy condition

The Architectural Board of Review granted project‑design approval April 14 for a proposed three‑story, nine‑unit apartment building at 523 West Gutierrez Street under the city's Average Unit Density program and state bonus law, subject to a condition that the Third‑Floor balcony railing on the south elevation be constructed as a solid wall to address neighboring privacy concerns.

The project proposes demolition of an existing single‑family residence and construction of a three‑story building with nine units, eight automobile parking spaces and nine bicycle parking spaces. The applicant reported an average unit size of about 597 square feet and said the project would include one very‑low‑income and one moderate‑income restricted unit. The applicant requested and received concessions and waivers for several standards during plan review.

Design details and board discussion The design team described adjustments implemented since earlier review: modest changes to decks and rooflines, relocation and clarification of long‑term bicycle parking, reworking of trash and recycling enclosures, and revised window placements to preserve neighbor privacy. The design team said windows over kitchen sinks were added to bring light into units without creating sightlines into adjacent yards.

Public comment and neighboring concerns Virtual and in‑person commenters raised parking and driveway concerns common to AUD projects, noting that tuck‑under parking often becomes storage and that vehicles sometimes back onto the street. An adjacent neighbor asked for care to maintain privacy for a small single‑story home next door; the board’s condition on the Third‑Floor railing responds to that concern.

Board action and vote After deliberation, the board voted to grant project‑design approval with the specific condition that the Third‑Floor balcony railing on the south elevation be solid, that the applicant provide additional material‑transition detailing, and to consider step lights rather than wall sconces on the back balcony. Recorded votes in the hearing transcript are: Chair Anderson — yes; Vice Chair Whelan — yes; Board member Anderson — no; Board member Black — yes; Board member Noon — no; Board member 6 — yes; Board member Sovereign — yes. The motion passed.

Next steps The applicant will return for final review with detailed materials and the board’s requested clarifications. There is a 10‑day appeal period on the board’s decision.