pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 7 | additional dwelling unit. The site is located within an R-2 (Two-family Residential Zoning District). (DB) Mr. Brighton presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Joanne Chandler noted that she owned the property north of and adjacent to the applicants' property, and spoke in support of this project. She had no objection to the applicants' plans to improve their home, and had been assured that the work would not be too disruptive. She noted that the applicants' had elderly parents whom they would like to bring into the home. She could see nothing detrimental about this project. Ms. Tracy Coté believed such additions compromised the integrity of the neighborhood aesthetic, and believed that too few of the additions, which she considered to be poorly thought- through, were noticed or debated. She believed the proposed changes would negatively impact the historic façade. She was concerned about the double-wide garage, which was not typical for this neighborhood. She expressed concern that the addition would not fit in with the area, and would degrade the surrounding historic residences. She requested that the applicants be directed to redesign an addition that would suit their needs, but would not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Donna Talbot, applicant, noted that pursuant to the last Planning Board meeting, all of the criteria for the approval had been met. She noted that they no longer needed any variances, were in compliance with all Alameda Municipal Codes, resolved the height problem with the house, and had incorporated the Planning Board's recommendations. She believed the photographs were biased, and noted that they preferred to follow the Board's recommendations and move forward rather than start the project again. She noted that the public hearing had been closed at the last meeting. She noted that the new elevations incorporated the suggestions from the January 28, 2008, meeting, as well as suggestions made by Planning Services Manager Jon Biggs. She noted that the front elevation on page 1 eliminated the massive stucco at the front and opened up the porch. She believed staff's suggestion of adding an open porch was excellent, and that it improved the look of the project. Ms. Talbot noted that the driveway did not cut down, did not look out of place with the rest of the neighborhood, and the front yard had a nice flow to it. She noted that the two-car garage had a single-car entrance off the street, which was similar to many properties off Fernside Blvd. She believed the driveway was attractively incorporated into the design. They redesignated the boathouse as a second dwelling unit, and that they no longer needed any variances. She noted that at the last Planning Board meeting, they discussed the height of the structure, and noted that page 4 explained the changes in the height from the existing to the proposed height. She noted that they reduced the height from 31'9" to 30' to meet the AMC requirement. She noted that the redesigned the front roof to a gabled style in order to reduce the roof height by the nine inches. However, design review staff did not like that concept and upon further reflection, neither did she and the co-applicant. They agreed to maintain the gable-style roof at the front of the house during the March 5 meeting with Jon Biggs and Dennis Brighton. Mr. Biggs had suggested that Page 7 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |