pages: PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 15 | 9-D. Design Review, DR04-0014: Linda Cortez, 1514 Pacific Avenue. Ms. Cortez is appealing staff's denial of this Major Design Review application (DB). This application requesting design review approval to raise the existing building one foot, six inches (1'-6") and relocate the building two feet (2'-0") toward the south (rear) property line to accommodate the elongation of the front stair. The proposal to raise the building will create approximately 1,618 square feet of new living space in the basement, resulting in a total completed conditioned floor area of approximately 3,236 square feet. Staff denied this project because of the following reasons: 1. The proposal to raise the building approximately one foot, six inches exceeds the proportionality relative to the upper and lower floors (i.e., Golden Mean) by three feet, three inches (3'-3"); 2. The proposal will create an undesirable massing of the building in relation to neighboring buildings which appear to be of the same design; and 3. The proposal will elongate the front stair and create an undesirable massing of the stair in relation to the building. The site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the appellants had not presented any new information since the last hearing when the Board had provided general parking direction on implementation of proportionality issue, (i.e. the Golden Mean) during Design Review. Staff recommended that the Board uphold the original denial of the Major Design Review. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Linda Cortez, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, noted that they were attempting to preserve their house and maintain the inherent architecture of the house during the remodeling process. Although raising of the house did not conform to the Golden Mean, she did not believe it would change or detract from the inherent architecture of the house in a perceptible manner. She noted that the two adjoining houses next to her house were not identical to hers, and there were slope differences; she distributed photos of those houses to the Board. She did not agree with staff's assessment that the addition of two risers would create an undesirable elongation of the stairs. Mr. Ian Ordinaria, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, requested the Board's reversal of staff's denial of raising the house. He noted that the Golden Mean did not necessarily address the connection between proportionality and beauty, and did not believe it should be a rule. He did not believe the Golden Mean should be applied to the whole structure, although it was applicable to elements such as doors and windows. It also was not clear that it should be the sole standard for a horizontal or vertical measurement, and he noted that the whole structure of the Cathedral at Notre Dame was not in conformance with the Golden Mean, although sections of it were. He noted that regarding the neighboring buildings, they were not meant to be tract homes. He noted that there were more than 20 homes with visually longer stairways than their home within a two-block radius of their home, including the Alameda Fire House. He requested that the Planning Board reverse staff's denial of their application. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |