Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission finds Winter Place fourth‑floor addition "exceptional" and disapproves permit after neighbors protest scale and height
Summary
Neighbors mounted a coordinated discretionary‑review appeal against a proposed fourth‑floor addition on Winter Place, arguing height calculations, settlement‑agreement expectations and privacy impacts. The Planning Commission took DR and disapproved the vertical addition, citing exceptional privacy and massing impacts to an adjacent one‑story rear cottage.
The Planning Commission voted to take discretionary review and disapprove a proposed fourth‑story vertical addition at 1 & 3 Winter Place in a contentious hearing that included technical testimony, multiple neighborhood advocates and cross‑examination of the project’s height calculations.
Opponents argued the project exceeds allowed height and violates residential design guidelines and an earlier settlement. Frank DeRosa, representing a committee of neighbors, told commissioners that plans initialed in a 2013 settlement showed the 35‑foot height limit and that neighbors relied on those plans when they settled. "We ask that this commission uphold that standard and honor a settlement agreement that was entered into in good faith," DeRosa said during rebuttal.
Technical experts retained by neighbors presented measurement and area calculations they said show the addition exceeds the 20% permitted roof area above the height limit and used incorrect survey points for calculating midpoint elevations. Architect David Field testified he found errors in the sponsor’s calculations and that including the stair penthouse area would push the rooftop exceedance above 20%.
The project sponsor and design team responded that staff and multiple zoning administrators had reviewed the plans and determined the project is code‑compliant. Architect Steven Sutro said the modest 624‑square‑foot addition "is set back 27 feet from the street" and would be minimally visible from the alley; he added that staff, two zoning administrators and the Residential Design Advisory Team had repeatedly confirmed conformance. Owner Ridge Sampson and project architect Jim Zack urged commissioners to approve the family’s modest expansion as reasonable.
Commissioners weighed technical, legal and neighborhood fairness considerations. Commissioner Moore acknowledged the emotional force of settlement‑based expectations but said the commission is bound to follow the department’s code interpretation. Other commissioners, citing consistency with prior denials of similar fourth‑floor additions and concerns for an immediate rear‑yard cottage’s light and privacy, concluded the proposal posed "exceptional and extraordinary" privacy impacts.
The commission voted to take DR and disapprove the building permit application; the motion passed unanimously. The decision preserves the current roofline in that mid‑block area and underscores the commission’s willingness to treat mid‑block, narrow alley contexts as distinct from through‑streets when applying the residential design guidelines.
Why it matters: The ruling reinforces the commission’s prior caution about fourth‑floor additions on narrow, dead‑end mid‑block alleys and signals that technical compliance opinions from staff can be weighed against neighborhood settlement histories and guideline interpretations when the commission finds an "exceptional or extraordinary" impact.
