Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overturns Planning Commission denial for 67 Madrone addition after weeks of hearings
Summary
The Board voted 5–0 to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of a partial third‑story and two‑story rear addition at 67 Madrone, adopting the May 17 iteration of the applicant’s plans and directing staff to prepare findings. Neighbors had argued the addition would harm neighborhood character and cause shading; the Board found the project met design guidelines.
The Board of Appeals overturned a Planning Commission discretionary denial and approved a partial third‑story and two‑story rear addition at 67 Madrone Avenue, adopting the applicant’s May 17 design package and directing that findings be prepared for a later adoption.
Planning staff described a prolonged review: the permit filing began in October 2006 and the Planning Commission continued the matter through four hearings, citing concerns about massing and requesting additional studies and three‑dimensional renderings. Tina Tam said staff had recommended approval but the Commission ultimately disapproved the proposal on neighborhood‑character grounds.
Appellant Regina McClendon and counsel Joel Jodowitz argued the project complied with the city’s residential design guidelines, noting the proposed third story was set back, tied under the roof and designed to limit visibility from the street. Architect Tony Pontiglioni explained design choices and said the project was modeled on existing taller houses in the area. Section 14 party Daniel Walsh (represented by Terry Gaynor) and a string of neighbors testified the addition would be out of scale, cast substantial shadow on adjacent windows and disrupt the block’s visual symmetry.
After questioning by commissioners and lengthy public testimony, the Board concluded the addition, as revised on May 17, met the code and guidelines and that the Planning Commission’s repeated continuances and lack of specific instructions to the applicant made it unreasonable to require further costly model work. Commissioners emphasized the project’s setbacks and reduced visibility from the street and voted 5–0 to overturn the Planning Commission and approve the May 17 proposal, with findings to be prepared by the applicant’s counsel and reviewed by the city attorney.
The Board’s action replaces the Planning Commission’s discretionary denial with an approval consistent with the May 17 plans and requires the applicant to comply with those plans as presented to the Board.
