pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 8 | since the nine-inch roof ridge was not a living space or attic, that it could be considered an architectural element, and extend beyond the 30-foot maximum. She and her husband agreed with that suggestion, and stated that they would incorporate that design into the design of the project. They displayed the new roof angle on the overhead screen. Ms. Talbot noted that Board member Cunningham stated at the last Planning Board meeting that they were well within their rights to raise the height of the structure to 30 feet. They believed that based on Mr. Biggs' suggestion, that the height and design issue of the front roof was resolved. With respect to Mr. Brighton's comments relating to the new roof at the rear of the structure, she noted that was the first time that Mr. Brighton had voiced that recommendation, and they did not believe this was an appropriate time to bring new suggestions to the table. She noted that none of the neighbors she or the co-applicant had spoken to voiced any concern about the project. She noted that the only opponents to the project that she was aware of were the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Mr. Brighton and Ms. Coté. She believed the proposed project met the objective and the intent of Chapter 13s and 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and represented a reasonable balance between their development objectives as the owner of the property, including handicapped accessibility and the community's desire to preserve its architectural quality and historic identity. Mr. Christopher Buckley displayed several slides on the overhead screen, and noted that a letter the AAPS had addressed to the Historical Advisory Board was included in the packet. They had not seen the revised design, and expressed appreciation to the applicant for their efforts to reduce the building heights and improve the front elevation. AAPS agreed with staff that the building should not be lifted at all, and that the building was already significantly higher than other buildings in the neighborhood. They believed that lifting the building further would distort its proportions, and did not see why it needed to be lifted because there was an extra two feet of headroom in the garage. AAPS agreed with staff that excavating would be the preferred approach. The appearance was boxy and not consistent with the Craftsman style. They believed if the eave were to be reduced and cross gables or dormers were introduced to handle the upstairs windows, as was done on the front elevation, the building would have a much more integrated Craftsman design. He noted that the six-foot addition consisting of the porch over the garage broke the setback line and introduced a significant new building mass which projected into the street. He noted that the double-wide garage became a dominating element, although it was broken up by the Craftsman doors. Ms. Nancy Hurd noted that she lived two blocks away from this house, and believed that his house was bigger than other houses on the street. She favored the excavation to reduce the amount of height, but questioned the changes that would take it away from the Craftsman style. She did not believe the house looked symmetrical in the drawings, and would like to see the original design of the house retained as much as possible, and not raising it any further. Mr. Seth Hamalian noted that he lived two doors down from the applicants' home, and had often heard comments from people that the homes in this neighborhood had character. He liked the uniqueness of the homes in Fernside, and noted that one style did not dominate the neighborhood. He strongly favored allowing the applicants to go forward with their proposed design, and believed the message being sent by this process should be considered. He did not Page 8 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |