Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2548 Sixth Street Shed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to enlarged shed at 2548 Sixth Street; city staff refer construction to Landmarks Design Review Committee
Summary
Neighbors told the Landmarks Board during open forum that a recently built shed at 2548 Sixth Street is much larger than the original and now blocks light; staff said the code‑compliance portion will be handled administratively while the new shed's construction will be reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee on March 19.
Neighbors raised concerns during the Landmarks Board's open forum March 12 about a recently constructed shed at 2548 Sixth Street that they say was built without proper permits and is substantially larger than the previous structure.
"The building is 700% larger than it was a tool shed," said Scott Kohla, a Concord Avenue neighbor, who told the board the new structure is now "actually a one room cabin" and is shading his home office and foyer.
Marcy Gerwing, principal planner in Planning and Development Services, said staff originally publicly noticed a landmark alteration certificate for 2548 Sixth Street but received guidance from the city attorney's office that code‑violation review for an after‑the‑fact demolition should be separated from review of proposed construction. Gerwing said the code compliance matter will be addressed administratively and that the construction of the new shed will be reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee at its March 19 meeting.
Board members and speakers asked for clarity about what relief is available. Neighbors asked for appropriate setbacks and for a shadow‑study to measure loss of sunlight; the transcript contains no record of a formal application decision attached to the shed complaint at the Landmarks Board meeting.
Gerwing told the public that the LDRC meeting will be posted online and that the committee can approve the proposal, request revisions, or refer it to the Landmarks Board for review. The board did not take formal action on the matter during the March 12 meeting.
