pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 5 | was also meant to be low to the ground. They believed it was a bad precedent to allow exceptions to the Golden Mean and to the Guide to Residential Design. Ms. Joanne Chandler spoke in support of this project. She noted that she owned the property adjacent to the subject site. She did not believe there would be an adverse impact on her property, and supported the variance. Ms. Seth Amalian spoke in support of this project, and noted that he and his wife lived two doors to the southeast from the subject site. He did not believe they needed protection from the proposed project, and believed it was consistent with the already existing scale and mass of the home. He noted that it was already in imposing structure, but in a positive way; he believed it was attractive. He noted that it already had three stories, and that the increase was three feet, which would make it a more usable space. He noted that the peak of the roof barely crept over the height limit. He noted that this house already had mass, and that the proposed changes would be consistent. He believed that in his neighborhood, investment by the property owners would be necessary as the homes age. He believed that when the changes were thoughtful and in keeping with the home's character, it would be acceptable. He noted that this house was not a low-slung bungalow. Ms. Patricia Plowman spoke in support of this project. She noted that she lived next door to the applicants, and noted that she had two single-family homes on her lot. She noted that many of the homes in the neighborhood had been built in the 1930s, and that many needed updating and upgrading. She noted that she submitted a letter to the Planning Board. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the property. Ms. Donna Talbot, applicant, distributed an exhibit to the Board and noted that their home was not on the historic list. She added that they endeavored to include as many Craftsman elements as possible. She was very disturbed by what she had read in the staff report and the AAPS letter, which both used the phrase "Craftsman Bungalow." She noted that the Alameda Residential Design Guidelines included a glossary that defined the architecture styles in Alameda. She noted that the example Craftsman house was somewhat smaller than their house; the example Craftsman Bungalow was a much smaller one-story home. She noted that their house was a large Craftsman house, not a bungalow. She noted that the two examples of Craftsman homes in Alameda were low one-story homes that did not have front entries. She noted that there were many things that could be done with a Craftsman house, and that they had worked very hard with their architect to preserve those qualities. She noted that the AAPS had commented that they planned to reduce the front porch to create a front stoop; she noted that they would double the size of the porch. She noted that the staff report and the AAPS letter discussed a side stair, and added that they still had a front step going up to the house; it was moved to the side and put a turn in it so it would not appear to be one long staircase. Ms. Talbot displayed several photos of the site on the overhead screen. She noted that they had discussed implementing changes from the staff report in order to provide a balance between their creative desires and what staff requires. They proposed to reduce the height by Page 5 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |