Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Deck Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves reduced roof deck at 2226 Green Street after neighbors win concessions
Summary
After months of debate, the commission approved a reduced roof deck at 2226 Green Street (reduced roughly from 700 to ~500 sq ft, additional setbacks and clear glass guards) and required that any substantive future deck expansion be returned as a staff‑initiated discretionary review; vote passed 6–1.
The Planning Commission reheard a discretionary review April 6 and approved a substantially reduced roof deck at 2226 Green Street following lengthy neighborhood comment and concessions from the project sponsor.
Staff reported that the revised deck had been reduced by about 200 square feet (from roughly 700 sq ft to approximately 500–584 sq ft in different calculations presented) and set back from property edges. The applicant said the deck would have no cooking facilities, no penthouse stair, clear‑glass guards to reduce visual bulk and that built‑in furniture had been moved inward.
Opponents emphasized privacy and noise impacts on nearby homes, particularly the Borsetti family, who live roughly 30–60 feet from the proposed decking. Counsel Michael Donner and several neighbors argued the commission’s prior comments called for more substantial reductions and proposed a 440 sq ft compromise. Neighbors also pointed to other local roof decks and differences in design.
Applicant representatives presented site surveys, a Google Earth distance calculation and images showing the deck’s relationship to neighboring rooflines and argued the revised deck fits the neighborhood context. Commissioners balanced neighborhood privacy concerns with the applicant’s reductions; Commissioner Richards voiced support for the sponsor’s revised plan so long as any future substantive expansion be routed back to the commission.
The commission voted to take discretionary review and approve the revised deck with conditions that included the reduced footprint and a requirement that any subsequent substantive expansion be handled as a staff‑initiated DR (effectively routing similar future proposals to the commission). The motion passed 6–1 (Commissioner Moore opposed). The commission also discussed minor additional pull‑backs at an eastern edge for detailing but the primary approval reflected the sponsor’s reduced design.
Next steps: the applicant may record required conditions; staff will monitor and any future proposals that materially expand the approved deck will be returned to the commission for review.
