Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board sides with homeowners on Fourth Street setback but says rear stairs need separate variance
Loading...
Summary
Homeowners appealed a Planning Commission/DBI decision requiring a 3‑foot west setback and relocation of rear deck stairs; after months of outreach and two plan alternatives, the Board overruled the Planning Department on the west‑side setback but declined to authorize the rear‑stair configuration (it would require a separate variance), effectively granting the project’s side‑setback request while leaving the stairs for later process.
The Board of Appeals on July 21 overturned Planning Department guidance requiring a 3‑foot west side setback for a proposed vertical and horizontal addition at 420/920 Fourth Street and allowed the applicant’s requested west‑side pop‑out (a light well), while declining to approve the proposed rear deck stair configuration because that element would need a separate variance.
Scott Sanchez, acting zoning administrator, summarized the Planning Department’s position: the residential design team recommended a 3‑foot setback on the second and third floors and that the rear stairs be moved inside the buildable envelope, changes framed as consistent applications of the residential design guidelines. He told commissioners the department’s recommendation was intended to apply the guidelines consistently across similar projects.
Owners David Maltz and Antje Khan and architect Bonnie Bridges said they had conducted extensive neighborhood outreach, made concessions including a voluntary 5‑foot top‑floor setback on the east elevation and a 10‑foot light well, and that strict application of the RDT guidance would materially reduce interior functionality. “With the RDT’s request to set back the west side and force the stairs into the envelope, we lose hall circulation and usable yard access,” Maltz said.
Commissioners discussed process limits: Planning staff explained the LOD/variance history and noted that a previously granted variance did not cover the full stair projection; the Board therefore could act on the side‑setback issue tonight but could not authorize a stair projection that violates code without a separate variance or other procedural vehicle. After deliberation the Board overruled the department on the side configuration (accepting the applicants’ proposed west‑side pop‑out/light well) and required the stair element to be resolved separately (by reissuing or appealing the variance or seeking a new variance). The roll call recorded the decision as 4‑1 in favor of granting the permit to the extent described.
