pages: CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2005-09-06 | 6 | directly in back of the lot on Lincoln Avenue 15 of the buildings are owner-occupied and 6 are rentals; the construction period ranges from 1895 to 1999; the neighborhood has a fairly good mix [of houses] Mayor Johnson stated that the design review process needs to be reviewed; there are commercial and two-story structures in the area; Lincoln Avenue structures should not be considered; inquired whether moving a piece of the structure counts as demolition. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded not necessarily; the project is viewed as a whole to determine if demolition is more or less than 30%; a new, red stamp will be placed on all plans to indicate the Historical Advisory Board's (HAB's ) approval is needed prior to demolishing more than 30% of a pre-1942 - home. Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed; people think that deconstruction and reconstruction do not count as demolition. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the demolition issue is being reviewed independently; someone could demolish less than 30% of a house and build a structure that does not look historic; on the other hand, a 50% demolition and remodeling project could retain the historic look; that she is not sure how the demolition can be separated from the design review; the matter needs to be reviewed in terms of what is being protected. The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the exterior walls and roof percentages are reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that the design does not reflect the historic character of the building. ouncilmember Daysog inquired when demolition versus deconstruction issues would be addressed. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded the issues would be addressed as quickly as possible; that he would like to review other jurisdiction's process. Councilmember Daysog stated the situation is unfortunate; the existing ordinance needs to be clarified; the Appellant needs to move forward with the project for reasons stated in the report ; staff and the Appellant have different interpretations; suggested moving forward with the project and, at the same time, move forward with resolving the larger issues. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 September 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf |