pages: CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 11 | been reached on three of the four items, with the exception of the walkway; there is also agreement on the items in the most recent letter AAPS submitted. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the walkway is a Design Review item that is not within the purview of the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) . The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the HAB'S purview is alteration of historic structures. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Design Review would be completed at the staff level, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current square footage of each structure. The Reconstruction Specialist II responded 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street are 1100 square feet and would be increased to 3106 square feet; 1532 1/2 Ninth Street is 1066 and would be increased to 2632 square feet. Councilmember Daysog requested an explanation of the "Golden Mean. " The Supervising Planner responded the Golden Mean was accepted by Council as part of the residential design guidelines and creates a proportion for Victorians with the upper level larger than the lower level; the upper level has to be 60%. Councilmember deHaan inquired how long the Golden Mean has been in place, to which the Supervising Planner responded less than two years. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site would be re-graded to comply with the Golden Mean, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the level of the walkways, to which the Supervising Planner responded the walkways would be level with the entry; retaining walls would be used. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be higher [than the walkways], to which Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the [grading] approach has been used before, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |