Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors seek discretionary review of 250 Randolph renovation; commission continues after contested sun‑study and privacy concerns
Summary
Neighbors filed discretionary (Doctor) requests objecting to a proposed 4‑story addition at 250 Randolph, arguing the plans are out of scale with adjacent Mediterranean homes and will reduce light and privacy; the commission continued the item to July 18 for additional study, including expanded sun/shadow analysis and exploration of alternatives (excavation/ADU).
Neighbors and project sponsors clashed over a proposed renovation and vertical addition at 250 Randolph Street on June 6, prompting the Planning Commission to continue the matter to July 18 while asking the applicant for further information.
Three Doctor requesters who live across Seward and Carson Streets said the proposed fourth‑floor addition and associated massing are “out of scale” with the block’s historic row of Mediterranean‑style two‑story homes, would block views and cast new shadows on adjacent backyards and would set a precedent for similar up‑massing on the street. They submitted photographs, a scaled overlay and a sun‑study they say show material loss of morning sunlight and a visible new roofline.
Project proponents (Kelly Friesen and architect John Lum) said the work restores a legal two‑unit configuration, accommodates family needs (three bedrooms on one level for young children), and that the design was reduced in response to RDAT and neighbor input (the team cut the sloped roof form, reduced rear facade depth and removed 7 feet from an existing third‑floor projection). The sponsor provided a sun‑shadow video and snapshots that the architect said show no meaningful additional shading for most affected yards except limited winter‑solstice minutes in some locations.
Commissioners raised three recurring concerns: the scale and massing relative to the immediately adjacent properties, privacy impacts from new windows and small balconies on an otherwise blank side wall, and whether excavation or an accessory dwelling unit could meet the family’s program without adding a full extra story. Several commissioners asked staff and the applicants to provide a full annual sun/shadow animation, clearer section drawings of the adjacent rear properties and feasible alternate plans that reduce massing while delivering the sponsor’s program.
The commission voted 4–1 to continue the matter to July 18 and directed the sponsor to provide additional studies and to discuss options that could reduce mass or deliver an ADU to meet the sponsor’s needs. Commissioner Richards dissented from the continuance vote.
Why it matters: The case illustrates tensions between neighborhood character and private homeowners’ desires to adapt older houses for modern family needs and highlights how sun/shadow and privacy analyses factor into discretionary reviews.
