Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Addition on Arkansas Street upheld; board rejects request for shadow study
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied Janine Vaughn’s appeal of Planning approval for a third‑floor addition at 675 Arkansas Street, concluding orientation and story‑pole evidence showed no meaningful shading impact and that the addition complies with Planning rules; the motion to deny the appeal carried 5–0.
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Janine Vaughn appealed Planning’s approval of a third‑floor bedroom addition and deck at 675 Arkansas Street, arguing the department overlooked policies in the General Plan and the Showplace Square/Potrero Area Plan and that a promised shadow study was never produced. Vaughn said the addition would significantly reduce daylighting and sustainable energy potential for neighboring properties and requested a fuller evaluation.
Permit holder Kelly Dermody and Planning staff said the project complies with code, is set back from the front and rear building walls, and is modest in scale relative to zoning allowances. Dermody said story poles were erected to show the massing and that the project would not create a material shading problem because the houses face east–west and the site’s orientation produces strong morning light from the east. Planning staff and the Residential Design Team supported approval and said a formal shadow study was not required given the lot and setback geometry.
After deliberation, commissioners concluded that the addition met Planning criteria, that story poles and the record provided adequate evidence, and that the requested expansion would not materially reduce sunlight to a degree warranting reversal. The board denied the appeal and upheld the permit 5–0.
What’s next: The permit stands and the permit holder may proceed under the approved plans; neighbors who raised solar‑access concerns may pursue administrative remedies if an installed solar system is demonstrably obstructed in ways not anticipated by the record.
