pages: PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-12-08 | 11 | Board member Autorino clarified the Boards' question as being how much is the front setback reduced by the new construction. Staff clarified that the proposed porch would extend seven feet beyond the house and the stairs would extend 31/2 feet beyond the porch. President Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant had stated that originally access to the house was provided by a side entrance and whether the applicant is attempting to restore this original design. She asked if the new design of the porch is also an attempt to restore the original design. C. Coombs replied that they have no direct evidence to the original size of the porch. He does believe the existing columns are the original columns of the house. His best evidence that originally there was a side entrance to the home is the design of the other homes in the neighborhood. President Kohlstrand stated she would support the setback encroachments to restore the property to its original design. She inquired whether this could be accomplished without adding seven feet to the front and extending it forward. C. Coombs stated the design plans are supported by the Historical Advisory Board. He supports the design because it provides a covered walkway for the homeowners. President Kohlstrand asked about a previous speakers' comment that numerous letters in opposition to the project had been submitted by neighbors. She stated that the Board did not receive these letters. Staff responded that letters referenced by the speaker were submitted to the Historical Advisory Board. No opposition letters were submitted to the Planning Board. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft likes the proposed design. She is concerned that the only proponents of the project are the applicant's son-in-law and the kitchen contractor. She questioned whether, with the proposed design, it would be necessary for visitors' to access the site through the neighbors' property. In response to a Board inquiry Staff and the applicants' representative clarified the positioning of the front door and the wall on the proposed design. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 5 of the staff report and the reference to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-5.7. She believes there is more of an impact for a walled addition as opposed to a porch. She is concerned with the neighbor's objections to the project. Board member Autorino stated the design was excellent but he has reservations based on the neighbor's opposition. Page 11 of 17 | PlanningBoard/2008-12-08.pdf |