pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 11 | Ms. Talbot believed that Condition 1 addressed the back roof, which was a new roof that was not part of the old Craftsman house. Board member Cunningham believed that was open to opinion, but that the 30-foot line was clear from the Planning Board's point of view. He shared President Cook's concern that if this height extension were to be allowed, then other residents would ask for the same allowance or greater. The applicant inquired whether the project would be able to move forward if the nine-inch architectural feature were to be removed. Board member Cunningham believed that would be the case if the roof ridge were to go down nine inches. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the pitch of the roof would need to be changed in that case, Board member Cunningham replied that would not be the case. Ms. Talbot noted that they were trying to preserve the look of the roof, but if the 30-foot height limit was more important, that would be fine with them. Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board must either follow the Alameda Municipal Code, or make finding that there was a unique characteristic about the property that would allow the height to be increased. He noted that the Board could not do that, and must follow the AMC; he added that the Board was not trying to single the applicants out, and intended to find a way to make the project work for them. President Cook noted that the Planning Board had decided that the total height of the house was more important than the number of stories, particularly with respect to having a third story. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was clear to her that the applicants were trying to complete this project in a way that would enhance the neighborhood, to have a house that was architecturally representative of the area, and in a way that could accommodate their needs and those of their parents. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a second condition: "The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any architectural detail." She believed that condition would allow the applicant to determine how to work within the 30- foot height limit. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major Design Review approval, which addresses: 1) Raising the residential structure to create a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2) Reconfiguring the front staircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3) Constructing a detached two-story structure in the rear yard that would serve as an additional dwelling unit. The two special conditions will be removed, replaced by the following modification: Page 11 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |