pages: CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2009-03-03 | 13 | street ; the historic context of the street should have been evaluated by the HAB rather than a Design Review. The Planner III stated the 1200 block of Bay Street has set backs of approximately 30 feet or less; approximately twelve homes near 1150 Bay Street maintain the 34-37 foot set back; the west side of Bay Street does not have a uniform set back. Councilmember Tam inquired whether 1115, 1128, 1134, and 1160 Bay Street have less than a 30 foot set back and have porches with similar designs. The Planner III responded 1232 and 1114 Bay Street have a set back less than 34-37 feet; stated that he cannot confirm set backs for the other houses. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal with reference only to the seven-foot extension of the porch into the yard. Councilmember Tam inquired what would be done with the HAB decision to grant a Certificate of Approval to alter more than 30% of the value of the building. Mayor Johnson stated that the Appellant has indicated that the only issue is the front porch. Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion is to uphold the appeal specific to the seven feet of the front porch area. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner could proceed if a porch was built that would not encroach seven feet. The City Attorney responded that there is no legal issue with the fact that the design of the porch extends forward seven feet stated there is no set back violation in the front yard; the porch design is the issue based on the 30% value of the building or alternatively the variance of the side yard set back. louncilmember Tam stated the Planning Board considered the design review and approved the entire project, including the front porch and the variance for the front porch and reduced side yard set back. Councilmember Matarrese stated the houses were built in a certain fashion and none of them have front porches; a similar issue occurred on Encinal Avenue; a row of three or four Victorians are viewed as historic. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 March 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf |