Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission denial for 1794 Filbert but allows applicant to return with revisions
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld the Planning Commission’s denial of a large remodel at 1794 Filbert Street, citing tenant‑displacement, scale and missing preservation review; the board recommended resubmitting revised plans and continued the item to allow Planning to vet a revised ADU‑inclusive design.
The Board of Appeals reviewed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial for a proposed renovation and third‑floor addition at 1794 Filbert Street. The project sponsor presented revised plans that remove a previously proposed roof deck, reduce the size of the top‑floor unit and add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) intended to preserve rental stock. Counsel for the sponsor said the revisions reduced the need for variances, added a family‑size unit and included a tenant relocation agreement.
Planning staff told the board the revised project differs materially from what the Commission saw, that an associated variance decision is final, and that preservation review and neighborhood notification for the revised plans had not yet been completed. The Commission had found exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and had denied the project partly on the grounds that it would not preserve affordable rental housing and that the proposed new unit would be out of scale.
Board members generally said they would prefer to see a revised, staff‑reviewed package rather than approve an ad hoc set of changes at appeal. The board voted to continue the matter to October 23 so the project sponsor and Planning can work through the outstanding design, fenestration and ADU documentation and present a consolidated, code‑compliant set of plans for review. Several commissioners emphasized that a clear public record and preservation review are needed before any approval could be considered on an appeal.
The board left the Planning Commission’s denial in place for now and asked staff and the applicant to coordinate a timely resubmission so the refined project can be heard in a short continuance rather than restarting a lengthy review cycle.
