Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and planning staff spar over third‑floor deck and sunroom light in Petro Avenue permit appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld a site permit for 1140 Petro Avenue with conditions after neighbors argued a revised plan added occupied decks and windows that would reduce light and privacy to an enclosed sun porch; the board imposed two modest design changes and approved the permit 4–1.
The Board of Appeals on March 4 upheld a planning‑approved permit for an alteration and horizontal addition at 1140 Petro Avenue while imposing two conditions aimed at protecting a neighbor’s enclosed sun porch and privacy.
Jesus Gomez, the nearby property owner and appellant, told the board the project’s revised plans — submitted after a planning‑commission discretionary review that reduced the third‑story envelope by 11 feet 9 inches — nonetheless introduced an occupied rear deck and large windows that would change a previously non‑occupied light court into an active, visible space. Gomez said his elderly parents rely on the sun porch for light and privacy.
Project architect Yaku Askew and structural engineer Rodrigo Santos said the changes were reductions to the approved envelope and were reviewed by planning staff; Santos added the team had offered peer review of structural addenda and had repeatedly revised plans to respond to concerns. Planning representative Tina Tam told the board the planning commission required the third‑story reduction but did not explicitly prohibit a rear deck; she said planners and the zoning administrator determined the post‑commission revisions did not require new neighborhood notification.
Commissioners focused on two specific design changes to address privacy: reducing glazing on a second‑floor bathroom window and making the adjacent second‑floor door solid rather than glazed. President Fung proposed, and the board adopted by a 4–1 vote, conditions that the second‑floor bathroom window be reduced to 2 feet by 3 feet and that the second‑floor door facing the Gomez property be solid.
Commissioners described the project as a compromise: the developer had reduced the building envelope at the planning commission and reconfigured interior spaces, but the board imposed the two targeted modifications to reduce potential privacy and light impacts to the neighbor’s enclosed porch.
The Board recorded a 4–1 vote to uphold the permit with conditions; Commissioner Goh dissented. The decision leaves the permit approved subject to the two design changes identified at the hearing.
