Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grants discretionary review and requires top‑floor setback at 402/420 Sixth Street
Summary
After neighbors argued the proposed Third‑Floor extension violates block pattern and reduces light for adjacent homes, the commission took discretionary review and required a 9‑foot notch at the top floor and matching of a Third‑Floor light well.
The Planning Commission voted 5–2 to take discretionary review and require modifications to a renovation and addition proposal at 402/420 Sixth Street. Neighbors had filed a discretionary (DR) request asking the commission to pull back a proposed Third‑Floor extension and to add a matching light well on the east side.
Staff initially recommended approval as proposed, noting shadow and radiation studies that showed only minimal new net shading and concluding the project generally fit the block’s context. Neighbors and the DR petitioners argued the block has a consistent pattern of Third‑Floor rear setbacks and that the sponsor’s plan broke that pattern, diminishing light, privacy and the character of the mid‑block open space. They also raised concerns about a loss of an on‑street parking space and asked the commission to preserve the ground‑floor rental unit rather than allow it to be reduced to storage.
After hearing testimony from neighbors, the project architect and the sponsors (who said they had revised plans and retained alley access), several commissioners said the Third‑Floor extension violated the neighborhood pattern and that modest changes would substantially reduce impacts. The commission directed a 9‑foot setback on the Top Floor (to align the Third‑Floor rear wall with adjacent buildings), required the Third‑Floor light well to match the neighbor’s light well, and urged staff and sponsor to explore reconfiguring the front curb cut so the short on‑street parking space might be preserved.
The motion passed 5–2, with Commissioners Antonini and Lee opposed. Staff said the unit on the ground floor would be retained though somewhat reduced in size and that the sponsor had provided shadow analysis. The commission asked staff to work with the sponsor on final details and to return with the required findings and conditions.
