Title
PLN16-0026 - 1427 Bay Street - Applicant: Daniel Hoy for Nicole Blake and Ryan Clausnitzer. A request to consider a design review application for an addition to single-family residence. The project consists of a three-story addition at the rear of an existing two-story residence, and will raise the overall building height from twenty feet (20’) to thirty feet and seven inches (30’7”). The project will add a total of 725.5 square feet of floor area. The property is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. The project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 - Existing Facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Body
To: Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
From: David Sablan
Planner I
BACKGROUND
The original single-family residence at 1427 Bay Street was constructed prior to 1909, and was a modest cottage with a raised foundation and high basement. The house had several alterations throughout the years that included the excavation of a single-car garage and driveway at the front of the home. In 1972, a two-story addition was constructed at the rear of the original home.
The applicant is proposing an additional floor over the 1972 addition, as well as extending the structure at the rear. The resulting design is a three-story volume behind the existing two-story house, with a separate roof that is disconnected from the main building. Staff has worked with the applicant to lower the height and profile of the addition, but the current plans still present an addition that does not integrate into the existing building as recommended in the Guide to Residential Design (Guide). The applicant disagrees with staff’s assessment and therefore - rather than deny the project and require the applicant file an appeal to the Planning Board - staff is bringing this application to the Planning Board for direction.
DISCUSSION
Existing Lot Configuration: The existing structure sits on a narrow and long lot, only twenty-five feet (25’) wide by one hundred and fifty feet (150’) deep. The narrow lot configuration requires that any addition to the house must occur either on top of the existing building or behind it at the rear. Any addition to the rear of this property will also necessitate the “K&L” findings in Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-5.7(K)&(L), which allow building additions along existing nonconforming side yard setbacks. Staff does not anticipate any neighbor opposition in regards to developing at a non-conforming setback after having notified the immediate adjacent neighbors, and has received letters from neighbors in support of the design. A statement from the property owner and neighbor letters are included with this staff report in Exhibit 2.
Design Issues: Given the lot configuration, staff agrees that adding to the rear of the building is the correct approach to expanding the living area for this home. However, staff believes the two story addition should replace the existing 1972 addition rather than be added on top of the 1972 addition to create a three story mass at the rear of the original building. The staff’s recommended approach would allow the roof on the rear addition to be integrated into the existing roof. Staff’s approach is supported by the Guide to Residential Design, which provides the following criteria for all new added stories:
• The new addition should be so well integrated into the existing design to appear to be part of the original design.
• The new building mass must not “loom” over the street or neighboring yards.
• The verticality of the new second story should generally be minimized by the use of architectural forms which echo the horizontal elements of the neighboring buildings.
• The form, mass and style of the second story addition must relate to both that of the existing building and those of the surrounding neighborhood.
As proposed, the design raises these key issues:
1. The three-story volume at the rear is incompatible with the existing two-story house.
2. The addition, as proposed with an entirely separate roof, appears to be a separate building simply sharing one wall with the existing building.
3. The proposed project is entirely predicated on the ability to preserve the 1972 addition during construction, which forces the design to have a third story.
The applicant has explained that the proposed design is based on preserving the existing living space in the 1972 addition, partly to save costs. However, the City’s Building Official suspects that it is likely that, once construction has started or during the building plan check phase, it will be discovered that either the foundation or framing of the first and/or second floors of the 1972 addition will prove to be insufficient for supporting the proposed addition. This will result in the need for reinforcement or complete replacement of the 1972 addition. The effect will be the near demolition of the 1972 addition, and rebuilding it as part of the current proposal.
Design Review Findings: In order to approve the project, the following findings must be made. Staff believes these findings cannot be made with the currently proposed plans.
1. The proposed design is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Alameda Design Review Manual.
2. The proposed design is appropriate for the site, is compatible with adjacent or neighboring buildings or surroundings, and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; and
3. The proposed design of the structure(s) and exterior materials and landscaping are visually compatible with the surrounding development, and design elements have been incorporated to ensure the compatibility of the structure with the character and uses of adjacent development.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption and no additional environmental review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities - operation, permitting or leasing of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that which exists.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Board has three options for an action on this project:
1. Approve the project by motion stating that the proposed project is consistent with the findings described above for Design Review approval,
2. Remand the application back to staff with specific direction to the applicant and staff regarding the necessary design changes to make the necessary findings, or
3. Deny the Design Review application.
Staff recommends remanding the project back to staff with direction to the applicant to design a two-story addition that is integrated with the original structure.
Respectfully submitted,
David Sablan
Planner I
Exhibits:
1. Project Plans
2. Public Correspondence