Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 1336 Shotwell Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors divided over towered roof deck and ADU at 1336 Shotwell; Planning Commission continues case for revised plans
Summary
The Planning Commission on March 7 continued its review of a request to legalize an ADU and add a 200 sq ft roof deck at 1336 Shotwell Street after neighbors and the applicant disagreed over privacy, light, and an earlier 1991 variance. Commissioners directed the sponsor to submit revised drawings removing the portion that extends into the required rear yard and reducing the deck size.
The San Francisco Planning Commission continued for one week its discretionary review of a project at 1336 Shotwell Street that seeks to legalize a ground-floor accessory dwelling unit and add horizontal and vertical additions to create a 200-square-foot roof deck. Zoning Administrator staff explained that the proposal triggers a new variance because a portion of the vertical expansion would extend into the required rear yard and the property is subject to conditions from a 1991 variance.
Neighbors and the Doctor requester argued the project would overturn prior variance conditions and harm privacy, light and noise for adjacent residents. "100% of neighbors on the direct property line oppose this project," the Doctor requester said, arguing an external or internal stair to the rear yard would avoid impacts. Neighbor Mike Bowden told commissioners the requested deck would overturn protections established in the original 1991 agreement.
Project sponsors Andy and Jess said they want to legalize the downstairs space and provide outdoor space for the primary unit. "We just want to legalize our downstairs unit and have a yard just like all of our neighbors have," Andy said, noting the unit has been rented and that the sponsors are not developers. Architect Mason Kirby described the ADU as approximately 530 square feet and said the proposed roof deck would be about 200 square feet; he said the applicant studied alternative stair locations but found firewall and design constraints.
Commissioners questioned whether the portion of the proposed flat roof that would extend into the required rear yard is necessary and noted that the planning code’s private open-space minimum for RH2 is 125 square feet, with at least a 10-by-10 dimension. Several commissioners voiced support for a reduced deck or removing the rear-yard expansion as a way to meet the open-space requirement while limiting impacts. Staff and the applicant said alternate sketches exist and could be prepared quickly.
Commissioner Braun moved to continue the item and directed the project sponsor to submit revised drawings that eliminate the unpermitted rear-yard expansion, reduce the roof deck toward the 125-square-foot minimum and pull the deck and access away from property lines; Commissioner Moore seconded. The motion passed 4–1, with Commission President Diamond dissenting. The commission closed the public hearing and continued the case to March 14 for the applicant to present revised plans.
Next steps: the project sponsor is to submit revised drawings reflecting the commission’s direction before the continued hearing; commissioners asked for plans to be available in advance for review.
