Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press board to delay 935 2nd Street project; DRB continues item to Sept. 11
Summary
Board continued the application for a new three‑story, two‑unit building at 935 2nd Street after residents raised concerns about lot size, privacy, landscaping and outreach. Staff said the RPS‑1 zoning allows multifamily uses but recommended additional façade and landscaping revisions; the board set a continuation date of Sept. 11, 2026 and requested the architect return with revised elevations and planting options.
The Design Review Board continued consideration of an application for a new three‑story, two‑unit building at 935 2nd Street after multiple neighbors objected to the building’s scale, setbacks and proposed landscaping.
An architect representing the owner presented plans for a contemporary three‑story structure on a narrow, nonplatted 4,000‑square‑foot lot in the South of Fifth neighborhood and requested variances to reduce minimum lot area and lot width. Planning staff explained that the lot is undersized for RPS‑1 rules because it appears to have been created from rear yard parcels decades ago and is not a legally nonconforming lot, so variances are required.
Several neighbors who live on adjacent properties said the proposed building dwarfs surrounding single‑family homes, will reduce light and privacy, and that the planting palette (including palms) would drop fronds on neighboring yards. “This property will not have the right setbacks, will cause noise, will damage our light and air, and will have loss of privacy,” one adjacent homeowner said. Another neighbor said they had not been contacted by the applicant and urged the architect to reach out.
Board members acknowledged neighbors’ concerns but also noted that the RPS‑1 zoning permits multifamily development and that the project complies with required side and front setbacks. The board’s discussion emphasized façade refinements (board members suggested reducing blocky wood treatment at the front and studying the garage door treatment) and landscape solutions to address palm‑frond overhang and maintenance concerns. Some members encouraged the applicant to consider alternatives to palms (vines, green walls or cypress plantings) or to commit to maintenance plans.
After discussion the board voted to continue the item to the September 11, 2026 meeting, directing the applicant to return with revised front‑facing elevations (possible garage door treatment) and landscaping plans for both east and west sides of the building. The continuance gives the architect time to consult with neighbors and present options for palms, vines or other softer buffers and to refine the garage/entry expression.
