Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Remodel Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission approval for 1264 Sixth Ave. addition; neighbors’ procedural concerns rejected
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied neighborhood appeals and upheld a Planning Commission approval for a modest rear addition at 1264 Sixth Ave., finding the project code‑compliant. Appellants argued procedural errors at the Planning Commission and unaddressed neighborhood impacts; the Board found no legal basis to remand and voted 4–0 to uphold the permit.
The Board of Appeals on Nov. 19 denied appeals by Cynthia Smith, Ken Miller and Julie McKenzie challenging a Planning Commission approval for renovations and a rear addition at 1264 Sixth Avenue.
Appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness at the Planning Commission. Cynthia Smith said she was incorrectly characterized as part of the discretionary‑review (DR) requester group and was prevented from speaking when she tried to do so; she and other neighbors also said promised story poles were not erected, plans were unclear and the project would significantly diminish light and privacy. "I was totally ignored and shoved aside on this matter," Smith told the Board.
Permit holders and their counsel said the project adds limited square footage within code allowances (a 2‑foot rear infill beyond the existing footprint and modest third‑floor notching) and that the residential design team and Planning Commission had reviewed the project and found it compliant. David Silverman, representing the Laytons, described changes made during neighbor negotiations (removal of a three‑story bay and a 4‑foot third‑floor setback) and said the project had been vetted by Planning staff.
Planning staff explained that the Planning Commission’s discretionary review process is a de novo forum and that the record showed Cynthia Smith’s communications and a staff interpretation that she joined the DR request. The Board found the matter properly before it and that there was no legal basis to remand the case to Planning for additional review. After discussion on neighborhood notices and impacts, the Board voted 4–0 to deny the appeals and uphold the permit as code‑compliant.
Outcome and next steps: The permit stands as approved; appellants may pursue other remedies but the Board found the Planning Department’s process and the underlying approval lawful.
