Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 9 Douglas Street addition after trimming upper‑floor corner to reduce neighbor impacts
Summary
After weeks of neighborhood meetings and a detailed shadow analysis, the commission approved a second‑story addition at 9 Douglas Street but required the sponsor to remove a small second‑floor toilet room (a ~3.6×7.2 ft corner) to reduce encroachment into a neighbor light well.
The Planning Commission on Aug. 2 approved a revised second‑story addition at 9 Douglas Street, adopting a modification intended to reduce loss of light and maintain neighbor access to light wells.
Planning staff presented the mandatory discretionary review for the addition. Neighbors at 5 and 15 Douglas Street and others urged the commission to take discretionary review, arguing the addition—two stories added to a one‑story cottage with a rear pop‑out—was out of scale with the modest cottage fabric, would cast a tall new wall into adjacent light wells and would reduce year‑round sunlight and airflow. Neighbors asked the commission to require mediation or further revisions to protect mid‑block open space and the historic character.
The project sponsor and design team said they had already made multiple concessions, including reorienting a second‑floor deck, reducing window sizes, changing to a hipped roof to reduce shadows and adding setbacks for a rear pop‑out. The sponsor said the addition is modest in square footage (about 557 sq ft on the second floor) and that many concessions had been offered but not accepted by the opponents.
The commission debated whether continued mediation would produce a better outcome. Several commissioners noted that the sponsor had already reduced ceiling heights and redesigned the roof to reduce shadowing; staff explained that some design choices were constrained by historic‑resource guidance and Secretary of the Interior standards. Neighbors’ technical presenters and architects countered that property‑line‑to‑property‑line rear walls and certain window placements would still produce significant shadow and privacy concerns.
After discussion, the commission adopted a motion to take discretionary review and approve the project with a specific modification: removal of the small second‑floor toilet room in the upper rear corner (approximately 3.6 by 7.2 feet), which pulls the building mass back from the adjacent light well and reduces shadowing. The motion passed 5–1; one commissioner opposed.
The approval includes staff recommendations to follow Secretary of the Interior guidance for the restored front façade and requires the sponsor to integrate the agreed modification into final plan sets before building permit approval.
The commission closed by noting the strong neighborhood engagement and the limited but meaningful compromise that produced a path to approval.
