Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning/DBI approval for modest remodel at 16A/16 Iris; appeal denied
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by a neighbor who argued a proposed deck and re‑designation of a nonconforming unit at 16A/16 Iris Avenue would intensify a nonconforming use and violate planning and building code constraints. The board found the plans complied with applicable code and commission directions.
The Board of Appeals voted Dec. 9 to deny an appeal by Catherine DiVincenzi challenging an alteration permit for 16A/16 Iris Avenue, concluding the project as approved by the Planning Commission and reviewed by DBI did not violate the applicable planning or building standards.
DiVincenzi argued the project would relocate and intensify a nonconforming unit, enlarge a unit beyond the 2013 building envelope, and create a deck and property‑line wall that violate Planning Code Section 181A and several building code firewall and opening‑limit provisions. Architect Janet Campbell and the appellant’s technical witnesses flagged a possible one‑hour fire‑resistance continuity issue and argued the deck would extend beyond the historically existing envelope.
The property owner, Jim Murray, and project architect Yaqui Askew said the work is a modest family remodel with plan revisions removing an interior stair that the Planning Commission required be deleted. City planning staff and DBI plan‑check staff reported the project went through discretionary review, and staff found the plans code‑compliant; DBI said the plan set passed plan check and observed the building’s work would be constructed to current code and sprinklered as required for a three‑unit building. Neighbors raised concerns about a de facto merger and potential loss of rent‑controlled unit status; board members noted the Planning Commission specifically ordered removal of an internal stair and that any future unpermitted stairwork would be a separate enforcement matter.
Commissioner Fung moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the plans as approved are code‑compliant; the motion carried with a recorded majority. The board directed that DBI plan‑check staff remain available to verify technical code compliance during permit finalization.
