Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues contentious Ashbury cottage addition after neighbors raise sunlight and open‑space concerns
Summary
A disputed rear‑cottage addition at 1110 Ashbury prompted extensive public testimony about sunlight loss, privacy and a longstanding interpretation requiring at‑grade rear yard area; the commission continued the item to May 22 so parties and staff can pursue design compromises.
The Planning Commission continued a controversial discretionary review for a proposed front addition to a rear cottage at 1110 Ashbury Street after neighbors and former zoning officials raised concerns that the proposal would reduce an already‑limited rear yard and block winter sunlight to a small adjacent unit.
Mary Gallagher, representing the objecting neighbors, argued the project conflicts with a long‑standing zoning interpretation that requires at least 25% usable rear yard area on lots with rear cottages and warned the proposed vertical and horizontal additions would create disproportionate lot coverage. Gallagher presented an alternate design that removes the top floor and increases at‑grade open space to preserve light and privacy.
Project sponsor Ty Bosch said he needs an elevator and an accessible plan because of a progressive neuromuscular condition and that the design accommodates disability needs. Commissioners and staff discussed possible design trades: widening the central light well/courtyard, moving top‑floor living space toward the front setback and narrowing the middle passage, or removing rear footage to create at‑grade open space while avoiding demolition triggers.
Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne advised the commission on reasonable‑accommodation obligations under federal disability law and recommended the commission continue the matter to allow staff, the sponsor and neighbors to reconcile disability accommodations with design and open‑space expectations.
After more than four hours of testimony and technical discussion, the commission continued the matter to May 22 to give the sponsor and neighbors time to work with Planning staff and the Residential Design Team on alternatives, including a narrowed light well, glazed breezeway options, or modest rear reductions that would not constitute demolition under permitting rules.
