pages: PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-10-23 | 16 | 8-D. Major Design Review - DR06-0034 - Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash - 1530 & 1532 Ninth Street (CE). The applicant requests a Major Design Review for alteration of three single-family homes, each into a duplex, for a total of six units. The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas Touhy, project architect, described the background of this application, and noted that they had reviewed comments received by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and City Council. They worked with the applicant to address those comments, and developed some recommendations. In the meeting, they worked through the accessibility issues for the lower units for the two front buildings, as well as the relative benefits and costs of raising the buildings versus digging down. During that meeting, they decided to leave the buildings exactly where they were, which seemed to solve a lot of problems with respect to proportions and the Golden Mean. He noted that Christopher Buckley had provided additional comments, which he believed were generally supportive of the changes in the project. He noted that the existing porch railing may have been boxed in, and if so, the existing railing will stay. If the existing railing is missing, it would be a more difficult issue with respect to adding a new element to meet the building code. He noted that the applicant would install all wood windows, and will consider the hipped roof line for the rear additions. With respect to moving the house, the applicants had decided not to lift the buildings up at all; they were in their historic locations, and they preferred to leave them there. He noted that with respect to siding, the applicant will be able to show what areas would be retained. He noted that much more would be able to be retained since the buildings would not be raised. He believed it would be fair that the applicant would prefer that the control of the design stay within the purview of the City. Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, noted that they had submitted a letter on October 23, 2006, with their comments. They believed the design detail showing the bay window was very good, but it was only a partial elevation; he would prefer a fully detailed elevation for the whole front elevation. AAPS was especially concerned about the handrail treatment, which Mr. Touhy referred to. He noted that the handrail tops should form a strong horizontal alignment with windowsills in Victorian buildings to form an architectural base to the main floor. The heights of the existing handrail was 29 inches, below the Building Code height of 36 inches. Rather than using an extension, they would rather see the stairway design have a continuous rail that went down to a fairly substantial newel post. Alternatively, the existing lower rails in front of the building could be kept, with a simple supplemental railing to achieve the necessary Code height. He appreciated the use of wood windows. He wished to clarify Item 6 of the letter, requesting the additional details of the rest of the front elevation, including the porch column and rail treatments in a complete set of details for consideration by the Planning and Building Director prior to the issuance of the building permits and allowing AAPS and interested Planning Board Minutes Page 16 October 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf |