Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors say revised Carolina Street plans fall short; board upholds permit with changes
Summary
At a hearing on June 24 the Board of Appeals considered revised plans for 910 Carolina Street; the permit holder reduced height and removed a penthouse but neighbors said the 186‑square‑foot reduction was insufficient. The board voted 4–0 to uphold the permit conditioned on the revised plans.
The Board reviewed appeals filed by Dorothy Larson and Peggy Snyder challenging a permit to construct a three‑story front/four‑story rear single‑family dwelling at 910 Carolina Street.
John Kevlin, representing the permit holder, described design changes since the May hearing: the building was lowered by pushing more of the structure below grade (reducing overall height by approximately two feet), the third‑floor length was shortened, the rooftop stair penthouse was removed, roof deck area was reduced and set back, and guardrails were changed to transparent glass to lessen visual bulk. Kevlin said the revised massing was consistent with adjacent properties in the block context and that the sponsor had met with appellants and made sincere efforts to address concerns.
Neighbors told the board the revisions were modest: they estimated only about 186 square feet (roughly a 4% reduction) and said the envelope still fails to follow the hill’s topography and remains too bulky relative to surrounding homes. Appellants presented diagrams and sight lines they said showed the revised plans did not meet the board’s prior direction to maximize light and air and better reflect local topography. Planning Department Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez said the revised plans are code‑compliant and that the prior discretionary review had approved the project at the Planning Commission.
Commissioners debated whether the changes sufficiently addressed the board’s earlier directions on setbacks and rear bulk. Several commissioners noted improvements (removal of penthouse, some setbacks and reduced roof deck) but differed on whether further modifications were warranted; one commissioner moved to deny the appeal and condition the permit on the revised plan dated June 17/24 with the justification that the bulk had been sufficiently reduced to satisfy neighbors. The motion required four votes and carried by roll call (recorded 4–0), so the permit was upheld with revised plans.
Board staff said the permit will be issued with the revised plans and the record will reflect the board’s conditioning.
