Neighbors win continuance as commission weighs 136 Ord Street setback, variance

The Planning Commission on April 15 continued consideration of a controversial discretionary‑review and front‑setback variance application for 136 Ord Street, citing the block’s unusual pattern of deep front setbacks and the need for more design work and neighborhood coordination.

Planning staff described the proposal as a new detached single‑family house at the front of a lot that already contains an existing cottage in the rear; the new design required a front‑setback variance because a proposed bay window did not meet headroom rules. The department’s Residential Design Team recommended approval of the building’s design but noted uncertainty about whether the block’s setback pattern should be treated as a special mid‑block open‑space condition.

Neighbors from Corbett Heights and the Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association urged the commission to take discretionary review, saying the 100 block of Ord Street has a distinctive, park‑like string of front yards that would be harmed by the front house. Speakers submitted shadow studies and arborist opinions and argued that proposed shifting of the curb cut could put a mature street tree at risk.

Project sponsor John Maroney said he had revised the design in response to concerns — lowering overall height by about 7 feet through garage excavation, removing a north‑side bay and adding a 34‑foot courtyard between the new house and rear cottage — and offered to record a deed restriction preventing a future lot split. He said the goal is to create a family home while preserving the courtyard as landscaped open space.

Commissioners split over whether the block constitutes a protected ‘‘mid‑block open space’’ pattern. Several members said the design is high quality but agreed the placement of the house relative to the front green should be reexamined. Commissioners suggested options including sliding the house back (by about five feet was discussed), removing the bay window to avoid the variance, or exploring an L‑shaped plan to better maintain the front yard character.

The commission voted to continue the discretionary review and the accompanying variance hearing to May 27 to allow the sponsor and staff to respond to design guidance and to give neighbors time for additional review.

Next steps: staff will work with the project sponsor to test alternative massing and setback options, and the commission will revisit the project at the continued hearing with revised plans and any variance notices advertised.