pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 4 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. 9-B. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - Donna Talbot and James Rauk - 3327 Fernside Blvd. The applicant requests variances to allow the following exceptions to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC): 1) Proposed main building exceeds maximum permitted building height (AMC, Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(4)); 2) Proposed boathouse/accessory building exceeds maximum height, required rear yard coverage, and building area standards (AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(f); 3) Proposed driveway exceeds maximum permitted driveway width (AMC, Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1)(b)). The Major Design Review addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure by three feet to create a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2) Constructing a two-story boathouse/accessory building. The site is located within an R-2, Two-family Residential Zoning District. (DB). Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff noted that it was not able to find any extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, physical constraints to the parcel, unnecessary hardship or deprivation of a property right because there were other design options that were permitted. Staff was unable to make the finding that granting the variance would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Because staff was unable to make the findings for a variance and design review approval, and recommended that Planning Board deny the proposed variance application and design review application. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the construction of the dock was part of the application, Mr. Brighton replied that it was on City right of way, and that the provision of a dock was approved at the building permit level, providing they meet BCDC and Army Corps of Engineers Requirements. He noted that was not under discussion this evening. Staff recommended that the clients go to BCDC and the Army Corps of Engineers before they start planning for dock expansion. If the Planning Board were to approve the entire project, it would be a boiler plate condition. President Cook noted that five speaker slips had been received, and polled the Board whether comments should be limited to three minutes. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft preferred to keep the comments to five minutes because of the significance of the subject. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Elizabeth Kraise, AAPS, noted that they had submitted an email on January 24, 2008. She noted that AAPS opposed granting a variance to allow the house to be jacked up, and that raising it three feet violated the Golden Mean ratio. They also believed that the house would loom over most of the adjacent buildings on the street, and be out of proportion with the neighborhood. The wider garage would mean moving the front steps to the side, which would further erode the architectural integrity of the Craftsman Bungalow design, which Page 4 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |