In a recent planning commission meeting, discussions centered around a proposed residential project at 1657-1659 Mason Street, which aims to add two housing units to the site. The project has sparked significant debate among neighbors and stakeholders, particularly regarding its design and potential impact on the surrounding community.

The proposal includes shifting the building's massing closer to the western property line and reducing the height of a stair and elevator tower from four stories to three. City staff expressed support for the project, emphasizing the need for additional housing while adhering to residential design guidelines and minimizing adverse effects on neighboring properties. However, they recommended several modifications, including further height reductions and the removal of a proposed roof deck to alleviate concerns about overshadowing adjacent yards.

Opposition from local residents was vocal, with several neighbors, including a doctor representing those directly affected, arguing that the project should not have progressed through the planning process due to alleged inaccuracies in the application documents. They claimed that the proposed structure would significantly obstruct light and views from their properties, effectively \"boxing in\" their open spaces. Critics also highlighted a lack of transparency from the developer, accusing them of misleading neighbors during pre-application meetings and failing to adequately consider the impact on the community.

The project sponsor defended the proposal, stating that it has undergone extensive revisions and community outreach since its inception in February 2021. They argued that the design aligns with zoning regulations and the needs of the neighborhood, asserting that the current plan represents a balanced solution for growth while respecting the area's historic character.

As public comments continued, mixed sentiments emerged, with some neighbors expressing support for the project as a necessary addition to the housing stock, while others remained staunchly opposed, calling for a reevaluation of the proposal to better accommodate community concerns. The commission is expected to deliberate further on the matter, weighing the need for housing against the preservation of neighborhood integrity.